ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Police Reductions (Northumbria)

Chi Onwurah: What assessment she has made of the effect of police reductions on Northumbria police.

Theresa May: The independent inspectorate of constabulary has found that, like other forces, Northumbria police are rising to the challenge of making savings while maintaining and improving service to the public. The Northumbria police and crime commissioner has recently restated her and the chief constable’s shared commitment to maintaining the number of police officers and staff working in their neighbourhoods. She is clear that her force needs to do things differently, use technology more effectively and work from different buildings that are cheaper to run.

Chi Onwurah: This morning, Northumbria police arrested eight people as part of Operation Sanctuary, an investigation into horrific allegations of sexual abuse of looked-after young girls and other vulnerable victims in the west end of Newcastle. Police have assured me that they are working with safeguarding agencies and local communities to protect the victims and pursue the perpetrators, but that very police station in the west end of Newcastle is to close as part of the £67 million cuts and we have seen a 7% rise in total crime in the region over the past 12 months. Will the Home Secretary give me a commitment that Northumbria will have the resources it needs to pursue this critical investigation?

Theresa May: I recognise the sort of case that the hon. Lady raises. Sadly, we are seeing too many such cases, particularly involving the horrific abuse of young girls. There have been a number of cases and I was with Thames Valley police a matter of weeks ago to talk to them about Operation Bullfinch and the lessons they had learned from that for the future investigation of such cases and how victims are treated. There has been a lot to learn. I do not think that the physical presence of a police station is what makes the difference to how such a case is treated and I am sure that the chief
	constable of Northumbria will ensure that there are the resources properly to investigate and to bring to justice those who are guilty of such crimes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The exchange was about Northumbria.

Fast-track Border Controls (Airports)

Barry Sheerman: What her policy is on the payment of fees for a fast-track border control service at airports.

Mark Harper: Border Force is committed to improving the experience of all passengers at our ports in support of the Government’s long-term economic plan, including the delivery of value-added services such as fast-track queuing. When such a service is delivered, it is appropriate that, at the very least, the costs of such a service are met by the passengers or airlines that receive the benefit.

Barry Sheerman: What seems to be emerging from this Government policy is a class system for going through airports. My ordinary constituents have to wait in long queues, and sometimes very long queues, whereas people who are wealthy—bankers, Mr Abramovich and people like that—have a special relationship that means that they do not go through security and are fast-tracked. I know that that is going on and it is a class system for who comes in and out of this country. What is the Minister going to do to reassure my constituents that that is not happening?

Mark Harper: It is difficult to know where to start; there were so many inaccuracies in that question. First, in the case of 99.6% of passengers, we meet our queuing requirements and we have now largely fixed the problems we inherited with Border Force and queuing. Secondly, everyone who comes through our airports has their details checked and it is clear in the operating mandate that 100% should be checked. We have fast-track approaches where people pay fees that provide extra resources so that we can deliver that service without damaging the service received by everybody else.

Henry Smith: London Gatwick airport in my constituency introduced automatic e-gates for departures for all passengers some time ago. May I seek assurances from my hon. Friend that Gatwick will be included in future fast-track border entry, which will be great for local business and great for that important gateway into the UK?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He will be aware that I recently had the opportunity to open the e-gates at the south terminal at Gatwick that mean that British citizens and European economic area passengers can get access to the United Kingdom more quickly with their chipped passports. We are looking into developing a range of services so that those who bring value, business, growth and jobs to the country can get here more efficiently. That is something that all Members should welcome.

Julian Huppert: For many years, the Home Office, and before that, the UK Border Agency, have offered people premium or priority immigration services, with set timelines, but they have not always managed to meet those timelines. What progress is the Minister making on being able to deliver all immigration services within the time promised?

Mark Harper: As a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, my hon. Friend will know that the latest data, provided to that Committee, show that we have made considerable progress in reducing the backlog of applications. He will also know that we have published our new service standard—I will write to Members shortly, setting that out—which gives customers much clearer, more transparent expectations about how long they should wait for their immigration applications to be dealt with. That will be a considerable improvement in customer service standards.

Police Recruitment

Siobhain McDonagh: What recent representations she has received on the effect of the cost of a certificate in knowledge of policing on the recruitment to the police of black and minority ethnic groups and disadvantaged groups; and if she will publish the equalities impact assessment of that policy.

Damian Green: Other than from the hon. Lady, no representations have been received on this matter. To improve recruitment standards, we have given forces a range of entry routes that they should use to recruit a work force who reflect the communities that they serve. A copy of the equality impact assessment produced by the College of Policing is available on its website.

Siobhain McDonagh: When the Home Secretary opened her College of Policing last year, she said:
	“Policing needs to be able to attract the brightest and best—regardless of their background. It should not place artificial barriers in their way”.
	In the past week, I have received numerous complaints about the college’s £1,000 bobby tax on police recruits. As the bobby tax has to be paid up front, and there is no guarantee of an interview or a job at the end of the course, or even of passing the course, it is clearly an unacceptable barrier to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds joining the police. Why will the Minister not instruct police forces to scrap this insidious tax on our police and young people?

Damian Green: The certificate of knowledge in policing is designed precisely to improve the standards of those entering the police force, to make them even more professional. From this year, the Metropolitan police will offer financial support to help with the costs of the CKP, in the form of an interest-free loan, which will be available on the basis of London residency and means-tested household income, so that will specifically be available to the hon. Lady’s constituents.

Charles Walker: Following on from that question, on the policing of ethnic minorities, the Minister will know that I am greatly concerned
	about the welfare of African-Caribbean people held in detention environments, and of those with mental health issues. Is there anything that the Minister can say today to reassure me that Front Benchers are aware of this concern, and are doing something about it?

Damian Green: I am indeed aware of my hon. Friend’s concern, not least because I have debated the matter with him in this House. I am able to reassure him further: my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary on the subject, because we take it extremely seriously.

Jim Cunningham: Can the Minister say what the recruitment of black and ethnic minorities is like in the west midlands? Can he give us the figures?

Damian Green: I do not have the west midlands figures immediately to hand, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that. If he is asking whether the police should do more to recruit ethnic minority recruits, yes, they should. That is why the College of Policing is devoting much of its early energies to this matter. Everyone throughout the police service, and certainly in government, believes that the police should reflect the communities that they serve, and that more needs to be done, both in how the police act on the streets and how they seek new recruits, to make sure that the police are more reflective of the whole community that they serve.

Tony Baldry: My right hon. Friend and, I think, the whole House will agree that police forces need to reflect the ethnic diversity of the communities that they serve. Does he agree that one way to do that is possibly by recruiting more special constables from those communities, so that forces can use their language and other skills? I have a significant community of Kashmiri origin in my constituency, and I would like the opportunity for a number of them to become special constables. They would bring to the role a lot of knowledge and other skills that are much needed in policing.

Damian Green: I agree very much with my right hon. Friend. The specials do a great job anyway, and their recruitment is particularly important, both as a way of increasing the diversity of forces, and as an entry route to full-time paid policing. Specials bring a degree of expertise from outside the traditional policing route, but many find it such a satisfactory career that they wish to pursue it full time.

Andrew Turner: Do the words “disadvantaged groups” in the question suggest that white working-class people should also gain from any measures?

Damian Green: It is not for me to anticipate what the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) was thinking when she tabled the question, but I have made the point that the Metropolitan police is offering interest-free loans; as I say, they will be made on the basis of residency in London—because the commissioner of the Met is keen that policing in London be done increasingly by people who live in the Metropolitan police area—and on the basis of means-testing. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) can be reassured on that point.

Firearms Applications (Processing Costs)

Stephen McCabe: What recent estimate she has made of the net cost to the police of processing firearms applications.

Norman Baker: The most recent assessment of the net cost to police of processing firearms applications was undertaken by the Association of Chief Police Officers in 2009-10. Its report estimated that the gross cost was £23.6 million; the income received was £6.4 million; therefore the net cost to the police was approximately £17.2 million.
	The cost and system of licensing firearms must be proportionate and fair. Work is continuing across government to ensure that that happens.

Stephen McCabe: If the cost of processing the licence and making sure that weapons are stored safely and securely is £17.2 million in excess of what the Government have raised, given the answer to Question 2, should not those who benefit pay? Why do the public have to subsidise the shooters in this case?

Norman Baker: I have some sympathy for the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that we went from 2001 to 2010 under the previous Government without any increase in firearms fees at all. He will understand that these matters have to be agreed across government, and other Departments have perspectives that have to be taken into account, but I am determined to make progress on this matter.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I am the chairman of the all-party group on shooting and conservation, which has been studying the matter in considerable detail. Is not the important the fact that there should be uniform treatment across all 42 constabularies and that the police should adopt best practice to drive down costs so that each applicant, wherever they come from, can be sure that they are getting the very best value for money?

Norman Baker: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the police should adopt best practice, and they are developing an e-commerce system, as he knows, which will reduce the average costs from £196 to £169, but it will still leave a significant shortfall.

Cyber-bullying

Sarah Wollaston: What steps she is taking to prevent harassment through the sending of unsolicited sexual images via the internet and telephone.

Norman Baker: The coalition Government takes all forms of harassment, whether online or offline, very seriously. We have robust legislation in place to deal with cyber-stalking and harassment, and perpetrators of grossly offensive, obscene or menacing behaviour face stiff punishment. We will continue to work collaboratively with industry, charities and parenting groups to develop tools and information for users aimed at keeping society safe online.

Sarah Wollaston: I welcome the measures that the Government have taken to prevent sexual violence against women and girls. The Minister will be aware that many young people have been pressured into sending intimate photographs of themselves only to find that those images are sometimes posted, distributed or shared without their consent, which is an important form of bullying and harassment. What measures have been taken, and does the Minister support measures to prevent smart phone use by those who are not mature enough to understand that it can result in an important form of bullying?

Norman Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. We have given teachers stronger powers to tackle cyber-bullying by searching for and, if necessary, deleting inappropriate images or files on electronic devices, including mobile phones. It is critical to educate young people about the risks of sending intimate photographs. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre has developed a specific educational resource to tackle sexting that is designed for use by teachers. There are numerous laws in place that can be used to deal with those who behave in this appalling manner.

Kevin Brennan: Would not updated compulsory sex and relationships education help to tackle this problem? Is the Minister confident that the police know how to deal with issues such as revenge pornography, to which one of my constituents was subjected, and which she did not get very much help from the police in trying to tackle?

Norman Baker: I am sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and her experience. The Government has made it clear that online crime is as serious as offline crime—there is no difference there—and we expect the police to conduct rigorous inquiries into online offences or potential offences. There are numerous pieces of legislation that they can use including, for example, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, under which it is an offence to send communications or other articles with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

Helen Jones: But online or offline, the Minister knows that the best way of tackling abuse and violence against women is to have compulsory sex and relationship education in schools, which teaches our children about healthy and respectful relationships. Now that this is supported by the vast majority of parents and teachers, the NSPCC, mumsnet, the girl guides—all those who work in the sector dealing with violence against women—will the Government abandon their attempts to stop it and support the amendment in the Lords that would introduce this in our schools?

Norman Baker: Of course, that is predominantly a matter for the Department of Education than for the Home Office. I have discussed the matter with my colleagues in the DFE, but it is worth pointing out that 96% of primary schools and 73% of secondary schools teach e-safety, either as separate lessons or embedded in others.

Police Forces (Local Authority Funding)

Emma Lewell-Buck: What assessment she has made of the potential effect of reductions in local authority funding on police forces.

Theresa May: Funding for local authorities is a matter for the Communities Secretary. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 puts in place two related, reciprocal duties for police and crime commissioners to co-operate with partners. These duties ensure that local leaders work together to achieve the most effective outcomes for their areas. PCCs are already working with local partners to ensure that they provide the services the public needs, and we encourage them to continue do so.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I thank the Secretary of State for her response, but the fact remains that people across Northumbria are being unfairly hit with savage reductions in local authority budgets and a loss of nearly 400 front- line police officers, which has resulted in an increase in violent crime. With this toxic combination stretching the fabric of partnership working and community policing to breaking point, what steps is the right hon. Lady taking to stem the rise in violent crime and reassure our communities and my constituents across Northumbria?

Theresa May: I am pleased to say that crime survey figures show overall across the country that violent crime is down by some 13%, but I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave earlier to her hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) about Northumbria. The PCC and the chief constable in Northumbria are looking to use technology to work more effectively and looking at ensuring that they collaborate with local partners so that they continue to provide the effective police service that her constituents and the PCC’s constituents want in Northumbria.

Andrew Bridgen: I note that police funding in Northumbria is slightly higher than in my county of Leicestershire per head of population. I also note that according to the latest recorded crime figures, crime fell by 19% in Northumbria and 24% in Leicestershire. Does not that show that the issue is not about absolute budgets but how that budget is allocated?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he echoes a comment made by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which shows that it is not the number of police officers that is relevant but how they are deployed. So it is about how the resources are used. As I have said, in Northumbria, the PCC and the chief constable are looking to ensure that they use their resources as effectively as possible, particularly through the introduction of new technology.

Geoffrey Robinson: The Home Secretary must be aware of the disproportionate anomalous effect of the cuts overall— by local and central Government—in the west midlands. We await her review of what happened to Coventry because of the damping review, where we received £44 million less than her own formula should have awarded, and the
	top-slicing that she announced in January means a cut against what we should have received of a further £3.9 million. Of course, the City of London and Surrey are doing much better. What has she got against the west midlands?

Theresa May: I am pleased to see that the crime figures show that crime continues to fall in the west midlands, and that the West Midlands police have been able to put in a bid to the new innovation fund, which the Government have introduced, and they were successful in that bid, so they will be able to put in place the creation, I understand, of a new intelligence hub, which will greatly enhance their ability to deal with crime in the west midlands.

Margot James: During the past two years, the budget for policing in the west midlands has been reduced by 13%, and during the same period crime has fallen by 18%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that this more-for-less outcome is in the interests of law-abiding taxpayers as well as the police?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is interesting that the Opposition always refuse to accept that good policing is about how the police are deployed, rather than overall numbers. We understand that, and so do chief constables, which is why, I am pleased to say, we are seeing the effectiveness of police constables and the work their officers are doing up and down the country in reducing crime.

Jack Dromey: To be a victim of violent crime is traumatic. To see one’s assailant not brought to book adds insult to injury. With 7,000 fewer crimes of violence against the person solved under this Government, does the Home Secretary accept that this is the inevitable consequence of the combination of the biggest cuts in local government history and the cutting of 10,000 police officers from the front line: more violent criminals getting off scot-free?

Theresa May: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise. Labour Front Benchers often quote detection rates. Of course, we have seen the number of crimes fall, and that has an impact on the number of detections.

Anne McIntosh: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating North Yorkshire police on further reducing crime by 5%? Does she also agree that local authorities have a useful role to play in reading the films from CCTV cameras and that that should continue on an ongoing basis?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for her comment about the necessity of working with local authorities, which I think is absolutely imperative. The work that local authorities do in looking at images from CCTV cameras and working with the police on that is an important part of the picture of partnership working to reduce crime in the local area.

Sales of Acidic Substances

Jim McGovern: What recent assessment her Department has made of the availability of over-the-counter acidic substances and the use of such substances in violent crime.

Norman Baker: Acid attacks are an extreme form of violence that the coalition Government is committed to tackling and preventing. The Home Office recently consulted on proposals to improve control of explosive precursors and harmful poisons and chemicals, including some highly corrosive acids, as part of the UK’s Contest strategy. We will ensure that proportionate measures are put in place to prevent the misuse of the most dangerous substances.

Jim McGovern: I thank the Minister for that response and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), for his written reply to me on the matter. Mr Hugh Reilly, a plumber in my constituency, has told me that he has to use a substance that is over 90% sulphuric acid to unblock drains. He has told me that unfortunately it is increasingly being used for attacks, particularly on women. In a tragic accident, an innocent householder put the substance down his drain. It burnt through the pipes overnight, went through the floor and burned the face of a five-year-old boy sleeping in the apartment below. Surely we need some system of registration and regulation so that only authorised and qualified people can purchase those substances.

Norman Baker: I am sorry to hear about the horrific incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We saw a report of another such attack on the front page of The Sun this morning, although fortunately someone was found guilty in that case. An EU regulation is being brought forward on the marketing and use of explosive precursors, and it separates chemicals into those that have a history of effective misuse across Europe and those that are less harmful. The great problem, as he recognises, is that many of those chemicals have legitimate uses in household activities, such as clearing drains and cleaning jewellery, so regulating them for legitimate use would be quite difficult, but we are determined to do what we can to identify the problems.

TPIMs (Expiry)

Dave Watts: How many terrorism prevention and investigation measures orders will expire during January 2014.

James Brokenshire: As of 30 November, eight TPIM notices were in force. The previous Government did not provide a running commentary on control orders, and for sound operational reasons we will not comment on individual TPIM cases. The next quarterly statistics are due to be published in March.

Dave Watts: I thank the Minister for that response. Until last week, both the Home Secretary and the High Court backed TPIMs. What has changed, and how will the Government protect the public now that they have made that change?

James Brokenshire: It is worth highlighting for the House that TPIMs provide some of the most stringent restrictions in any democratic country. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, described them as a “harsh” measure. I highlight that the two-year
	limit for TPIMs is supported by David Anderson and his predecessor in that role, Lord Carlile, who was appointed by the previous Labour Government. There are measures in place to manage TPIM suspects when they come off their orders, and we have confidence in the ability of the police and the Security Service to manage risk, which they do every day.

Julian Brazier: Does my hon. Friend accept that this matter is a very strong reason for looking at the radical measures hinted at by our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in relation to the European convention on human rights? Until 10 years ago, all Governments of all complexions accepted that some foreign suspects were too dangerous to be allowed to roam about.

James Brokenshire: As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have pursued deportation with assurances in seeking to deport individuals from this country who would do us harm—we did so successfully in removing Abu Qatada from this country—but there will always be a cadre of individuals whom we cannot deport. We maintain TPIMs to be able to guard against risks from those individuals, and that is why we consider that TPIMs continue to be effective.

Keith Vaz: Does the Minister share my concern about the number of British citizens who are travelling to and from Syria to participate in extremist activity? The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation estimates that 366 British citizens have made the trip to Syria and back again, and some may well have reached the criteria that make a TPIM order appropriate. Now that the orders are expiring, is he satisfied that there are practical measures to monitor individuals of this kind?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the risk from Syria—that individuals may travel out there and then come back and pose a risk to us in this country. That is why the Government have taken a number of steps. For example, the Home Secretary has highlighted the change and strengthening of approach in relation to the royal prerogative. We will not hesitate to take measures to disrupt travel and to prosecute those involved in terrorism whether here or in other countries, such as Syria.

Richard Fuller: Will the Minister assure me that he will not follow the example of Labour Front Benchers who, in a debate last week, trampled on centuries of long-established principles of justice purely to look tough on this issue? Instead, will he continue to balance the principles of British justice with the rights of suspects?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the whole issue of the challenges that can be made in the courts. As control orders were being steadily eroded, we reviewed them very carefully as part of the counter-terrorism review at the start of this Parliament. The courts have upheld every TPIM notice that they have reviewed, and TPIMs have been endorsed by the courts, counter-terrorism reviewers, the police and the Security Service.

Diana Johnson: Last year, after Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed absconded from his TPIM, the Home Secretary told this House that he no longer posed a threat to the UK.
	Turning to AM, another terrorist subject, Lord Justice Mitting concluded that AM was involved in
	“a viable plot to commit mass murder by bringing down transatlantic passenger airlines by suicide bombings, which was disrupted by the arrest and prosecution of a number of individuals in the United Kingdom”,
	and that
	“there is every reason to believe that AM would have killed himself and a large number of other people”.
	With AM’s TPIM order arbitrarily ending this month, will the Minister now confirm to the House that AM no longer presents a threat to the United Kingdom?

James Brokenshire: It would be wrong to comment on the detailed operational issues surrounding TPIM subjects, as that could undermine the very work of the police and security services. The police and security services have been clear that TPIMs have been effective in reducing the risk from such individuals, and they have tailored plans in place to manage them. If any individual engages in any further terrorist-related activity after the expiry of their TPIM, the police will not hesitate to prosecute.

Charlie Elphicke: Does this matter not underline the problems caused by European human rights and make stronger the case for human rights modernisation and reform to ensure that the UK Supreme Court has the final say?

James Brokenshire: As my hon. Friend will know, we are actively considering how to strike the right balance on human rights. The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims and the Secretary of State for Justice are looking at that issue closely to ensure that the rights and freedoms of individuals are upheld properly in this country.

TPIMs (Cost of Surveillance)

Julie Elliott: What the cost has been of providing surveillance for suspects subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures to date.

James Brokenshire: Additional funding of tens of millions of pounds has been made available to the police and the Security Service each year for surveillance, technical capabilities and other measures to mitigate the overall risk as part of the TPIMs package.

Julie Elliott: What can the Minister say to reassure my constituents in Sunderland about the increased risk that they are at after the release in the past week of six very dangerous people on TPIMs, bearing it in mind that two people have previously disappeared without trace?

James Brokenshire: It is worth highlighting that under the previous Government’s control order regime, seven individuals disappeared in six years. We have increased
	spending on the security and intelligence agencies and protected counter-terrorism policing budgets in the 2015-16 spending round to ensure that the capabilities are maintained. That includes resources for surveillance and the management of TPIMs subjects. Upholding national security remains the priority of this Government.

Violent Crime

Catherine McKinnell: What steps she is taking to reduce violent crime.

Norman Baker: The coalition Government is taking decisive action to reduce violence, including sexual violence against women, children and vulnerable people, and gang and youth violence. That includes preventing violence happening in the first place, providing effective support to victims, and ensuring that perpetrators are arrested, charged and successfully prosecuted.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Minister for that answer. Alcohol-fuelled crime, which is often violent, costs £11 billion per year. Newcastle city council has introduced a late-night levy to bring in revenue to deal with some of those issues. However, that does not address the wider issue or the problem of people pre-loading on alcohol from supermarkets. The Government’s alcohol policy is clearly in tatters. Why did the Home Office suppress a report on minimum prices ahead of the Government’s U-turn on that issue?

Norman Baker: I am not aware of any report that has been suppressed. If the hon. Lady wants to write to me with the details, I will look into it. I assure her that the Government is taking a firm line with the alcohol industry. It has a responsibility to society for its products and for their misuse. The cost to the taxpayer is £21 billion a year, which is shared between the costs of antisocial behaviour and the costs to the NHS. We have a strategy and we expect the industry to co-operate. We do not rule out taking further action if it does not co-operate.

James Duddridge: In strongly welcoming the fall in violent crime, may I ask the Minister what can be done, over and above what is being done, about the particularly difficult and pernicious problem of knife crime?

Norman Baker: I am happy to say that there has been a reduction in knife crime under this Government. That is shown not only by the crime figures, but by the NHS data, which show that about 14% fewer people were admitted to hospital due to assault with a sharp object, including knives, in the year to March 2013. Police recorded crime also showed that knife crime was down by 10%. We created a new offence in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 for those who carry a knife in a public place or a school and go on to threaten and cause an immediate risk of serious physical harm to another person.

Psychoactive Substances

Andrew Griffiths: What steps she is taking to restrict the supply of new psychoactive substances.

Norman Baker: The coalition Government has banned hundreds of new psychoactive substances. We work closely with law enforcement partners to tackle this reckless trade. Concerted action, which started in November, has resulted in 44 arrests and seizures of new psychoactive substances, including 9 kg seized by Kent police. I am leading a review to look at how the UK’s response to such new drugs can be further strengthened.

Andrew Griffiths: I thank the Minister for his response and for the action that has been taken so far. However, may I draw his attention to the report, “No Quick Fix”, that was compiled by the Centre for Social Justice? It shows that although there are 234 controlled drugs, 251 uncontrolled drugs are available as we speak and the figure is increasing by one a week. What will he do to close down the supply chain, particularly through head shops on the high street and through the internet?

Norman Baker: I am happy to say that we have already banned more than 250 new substances. We will continue to introduce bans and to use temporary control orders. I have asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the generic definitions that are used to ban families of drugs to get even speedier action.

Andrew Gwynne: I welcome the Government’s review of legal highs, but is it not three years too late? In that time, the Government have not introduced a single measure to tackle the myth that just because those drugs are legal, they are safe.

Norman Baker: It is not true that we have not introduced measures. I have just referred to the fact that 250 substances have been banned. We continue to take strong action, including police action, to deal with those who are breaking the law. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that a clear message should go out that just because something is deemed legal, it should not be assumed that it is safe. That is a central part of the Government’s message.

Michael Ellis: I congratulate the Government on the tough measures that they have taken on so-called legal highs and psychoactive substances. Apparently, some come in packages with cartoon-style images that are attractive to younger people. Will the Minister consider what can be done to restrict the packaging as well as the substances themselves?

Norman Baker: I will happily look into that, and I share my hon. Friend’s view that that is entirely inappropriate marketing.

John Woodcock: When does the Minister expect the review to be concluded, and will he consider giving police officers and trading standards officers more powers so that they can put an immediate stop on a new substance and put the onus on nefarious traders to prove that it is a hair product, plant food or whatever nonsense they call it?

Norman Baker: We have a quick response already—faster than nearly every other country in the European Union—but I agree that we need to look further at that. The review is under way, as I mentioned, and will be concluded
	in the summer, coterminously with the international comparator study that my predecessor started, so we will also be able to examine how other countries are dealing with the challenge of new psychoactive substances.

Visas

John Howell: What recent steps she has taken to improve the visa and immigration system.

Theresa May: The Government are working to build an immigration system that works in the national interest. We are reforming immigration routes, tackling abuse and improving customer services. We have abolished the UK Border Agency and created three distinct commands focusing on border control, visas and immigration, and immigration enforcement. Those are the right changes, but it will take substantial work and a number of years to fix the broken system that we inherited.

John Howell: Does the Home Secretary agree that recent visa figures showing a 7% rise in the number of applications to study in Britain show that we continue to attract the brightest and best students from around the globe?

Theresa May: That is absolutely right. One of the key changes that we made to the immigration system was to introduce a greater degree of differentiation so that we encourage the brightest and the best. The figures that my hon. Friend quoted show that we are bringing the brightest and the best into our universities, and long may that continue. At the same time, we have rooted out abuse and continue to work to do so, particularly in the student visa system.

Paul Blomfield: This morning on the “Today” programme, the Prime Minister said that the Government were simply introducing NHS charges for
	“people who have no right to be here”.
	Will the Home Secretary therefore table amendments to the Immigration Bill to exempt students and others who do have the right to be here and are making a major contribution to the UK economy, or has the Prime Minister got it wrong?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the changes that we are bringing forward in the Immigration Bill, which will do a number of things. They will indeed make it harder for people to be here in the United Kingdom when they have no right to be here. They will also make it easier for us to deal with people who are here illegally who I am sure everybody in the House wants to see removed from this country.

Peter Bone: On Thursday, the Immigration Bill will come back to the House on Report. The Home Secretary will be delighted that there are 30 pages of new clauses and amendments. There are 50 Government amendments, and it appears that we cannot possibly have enough time in the four
	hours on Thursday to debate or even read those 30 pages. Will she now tell the House that we will have an extra day for Report?

Theresa May: The Leader of the House has announced the business and the time available for the Immigration Bill on Thursday. I recognise that there are a significant number of Government amendments. They are mainly small and technical but, like my hon. Friend, I would prefer that we did not have to bring so many technical amendments to the House at this stage.

David Hanson: Today, on behalf of the official Opposition, I have signed new clauses 7 to 10 to the Immigration Bill, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and several other Conservative Back Benchers, which would strengthen future European Union accession arrangements. Given that new cross-party consensus, will the Home Secretary join us in supporting those new clauses on Thursday?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman must wait and see what happens on Thursday, but I have looked with interest at the amendments tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). I am pleased there is agreement across the House that we must take action in future on accession countries, and the number of people who may be coming to the UK from those countries.

Living Wage

Kate Green: What steps she is taking to ensure all directly employed and contract staff who work in her Department are paid the living wage.

James Brokenshire: Directly employed Home Office staff are already paid above the living wage, and we are working with our suppliers to ensure that agency workers are paid in line with Home Office pay levels. Contract staff working in the Home Office are paid above the minimum wage, but decisions on pay rates are for their employers.

Kate Green: The Home Office lags behind some other Departments, including the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and No. 10, which are already living wage Departments. Does the Minister agree that Whitehall should lead from the front in tackling low pay and in-work poverty, and will he agree to meet representatives of the Living Wage Foundation to discuss how the Home Office can be accredited as a living wage employer?

James Brokenshire: We do encourage the living wage, as the hon. Lady will know from the statements she refers to. I am pleased to say that the Home Office pay settlement for the past year focused on enhancing the pay of its lowest-paid staff who, as a result, received significant increases—19.6% above the living wage in central London, and 6.6% higher outside London. I will reflect carefully on what the she said and consider the appropriateness of such a meeting, given the issues at stake.

Robert Halfon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to achieve the living wage is by cutting tax for low earners, as the Government have already done? Will he lobby the Treasury to cut tax for low earners still further by raising the threshold at which low earners pay national insurance?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend has made his own representation through the point he has raised, but I absolutely support his recognition of the work the Government have done for those on low pay, and in taking people out of the tax system altogether.

Crime on Public Transport (London)

Heidi Alexander: What recent assessment she has made of the level of crime on public transport in London.

Damian Green: The latest figures show that the risk of becoming a victim of crime while travelling on Transport for London’s transport system is now at its lowest level since recording began in 2004.

Heidi Alexander: The Minister will know that the Mayor of London has announced the wholesale closure of ticket offices across London. Does he accept that slashing staff levels will leave many commuters more fearful of crime and that it calls into question the ability of busy stations to respond to emergencies?

Damian Green: I do not accept that because those staff will be redeployed to work outside the ticket offices—not behind barriers but actually among passengers. Like me, I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that not only has crime fallen by 5.5% on the underground, but that bus-related crime has fallen by 3.2%. In Lewisham, bus-related crime fell by almost 14% compared with 2011-12, which I am sure she and her constituents will welcome.

Topical Questions

Andrew Miller: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Theresa May: The Home Office’s legislative programme for the year ahead builds on the successes of our work since the last election. Net migration is down by nearly a third since its peak in 2010, with net migration from outside the EU now at its lowest level since 1998. The Immigration Bill will reform the removals and appeals system, end the abuse of article 8, and prevent illegal immigrants from accessing and abusing our public services or the labour market. Police reforms are working: crime continues to fall and stands at its lowest level since the independent crime survey began in 1981. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will, among other things, introduce simpler, more effective powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, which will provide better protection for victims and communities. The Joint Committee scrutinising the draft modern slavery Bill began its work last week. Tackling individuals and organised crime groups who subject victims to
	horrendous abuse will result in more arrests, more prosecutions and—most importantly—more victims being released from slavery and more prevented from entering it in the first place.

Andrew Miller: What plans does the Secretary of State have for next month’s illegal wildlife trade conference? Will she publish her action plan for that conference, and set out her plan for Britain to continue to play an important role in this area, on which there is cross-party agreement?

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he will be aware, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the lead Department on that conference, but the Home Office is heavily involved. We are working with DEFRA and are committed to continuing funding of the wildlife crime unit.

Dominic Raab: The Normington report found that the Police Federation harasses those with dissenting views, lacks financial transparency and is a weak voice for officers. The report made 36 specific recommendations. Does the Home Secretary agree that the current chairman presiding over that systemic failure cannot be the right person to reform it?

Theresa May: I have to say to my hon. Friend that the current chairman of the Police Federation initiated the review. He wanted properly to review the federation’s role and whether it represents officers properly. Obviously, a number of key recommendations have come forward. It is important that the federation has had the review. If any changes require Home Office input, we stand ready to work with the federation on them.

Yvette Cooper: Last week, the Home Secretary refused to come to the House to answer a question on vulnerable Syrian refugees, and sent the Immigration Minister to convey to the House her decision that Britain would not provide sanctuary to any of the vulnerable refugees, torture victims, abandoned children and others whom the Opposition and hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged her to help. He told us that to do so was simply a “token”. Twenty-one MPs asked the Home Office to change its position and sign up to the UN programme, and each time the Minister said no. As a result of the pressure that the Home Secretary has been put under, and in advance of the vote on Wednesday, has she listened, and is the answer now yes?

Theresa May: First, the United Kingdom has a fine record in terms of the amount of money we are providing in humanitarian aid—it is the largest sum of money of any of the European Union countries. We have also accepted in the past three years several thousand asylum seekers from Syria. That is another way in which we are appropriately offering support. Through the mandate programme, we have the ability to take refugees who have family connections here and whose families are willing to support them. However, I am working with the Foreign Secretary to look at what further support can be provided by the Government. Further announcements on that will be made in due course.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Home Secretary for her answer. As she will know, hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that aid to the region is vital. The majority of people will be helped through that, but the UN and others have made it clear that a minority of refugees are too vulnerable to cope or even to survive in the camps. That is why it is so important to provide extra help. This is not an either/or.
	Let me press the Home Secretary specifically on the UN programme. She will know that there is huge flexibility within the programme on the numbers of people whom Britain can offer to help, on Britain’s ability to do security checks on those coming forward, and on Britain’s ability to specify who and what kinds of refugees it can support. Will she therefore tell the House now whether she will agree in principle to sign up to the UN programme—yes or no?

Theresa May: This issue is of concern for hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government are looking at the most appropriate way for us to provide support and enhance the support we are already giving. As I said in answer to the right hon. Lady’s first question, I am working with the Foreign Secretary, and announcements will be made in due course. She wants an answer from me today, but I can assure her that she will have a response from the Government in advance of the House considering the Opposition motion on Wednesday.

John Pugh: My constituent, Rebecca Holmes, was murdered by an abusive ex-partner while under the protection of the police. We have waited two years for an Independent Police Complaints Commission report in order to learn the lessons. Can the Minister do anything to hurry such reports along, or at any rate to monitor how slowly they go?

Damian Green: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have given the IPCC extra resources and extra powers so it can carry out its work more efficiently. It is independent, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases, but if he would like to send me more details, I will happily take up the general point with the IPCC.

Nicholas Dakin: I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to next month’s conference on illegal wildlife trade and her continuing commitment to fund the wildlife crime unit. Will she now consider making wildlife crime a notifiable and recordable offence?

Norman Baker: I am glad the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Government are fully committed to tackling wildlife crime in all its manifestations. We are certainly happy to look at any suggestion on how we can enhance our efforts further.

Philip Davies: Proposed changes to dangerous dogs legislation contained in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill could mean that police officers, vets or officers from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who deal with or remove a dangerous dog that bites somebody, will be charged with a criminal offence, attracting up to five
	years in prison or 14 years if anyone dies as a result. Will the Home Secretary look at such unintended consequences before we implement further knee-jerk legislation, compounding an area of law that is already a dog’s breakfast?

Norman Baker: I do not recognise my hon. Friend’s description, nor would I describe the legislation he refers to as “knee-jerk”. It has been subject to proper consultation and due consideration by this House in Committee and elsewhere. It is important that we deal with dangerous dogs. It is also important to ensure that dog owners behave responsibly towards those who may be affected adversely by their activities.

Susan Elan Jones: The police and crime commissioner for north Wales is a member of one of the coalition Government parties, but that did not stop him last week expressing great concern at the scale of central grants from the Home Office for policing. He was especially concerned about the rising cost of fuel and petrol. Will the Home Secretary tell the House what discussions she has had with police and crime commissioners who represent rural areas on this important matter?

Damian Green: I assure the hon. Lady that both I and the Home Secretary have many meetings with police and crime commissioners, both from urban and rural areas; indeed, I met all the Welsh PCCs in one group in recent months. If the hon. Lady and her police and crime commissioner are worried about fuel duties, I remind her that it is this Government who have frozen fuel duties and ended the fuel duty escalator that the Government she supported kept throughout their time in office.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating Northamptonshire police, the police and crime commissioner, Adam Simmonds, and Chief Constable Adrian Lee for overseeing a 23% cut in violent crime—over halfway to their target of a 40% cut by 2016— that makes it the second most improving force in the country in this area of crime?

Theresa May: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the work done by individual officers, the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner in Northamptonshire. Their work is having a real impact on crime levels in the area, and that is of real benefit to those who live there. The Northamptonshire PCC has been at the forefront of looking at innovative ways for the police to work more effectively—for example, by bringing the blue light services together—and we support him in that.

Stephen McCabe: Given the responsibility of police and crime commissioners for setting force budgets, how many have been consulted on, and voiced their approval of, capping the police precept?

Damian Green: It is a matter for the commissioners themselves to decide whether to put up their precept, within the limits prescribed. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that this morning the Hertfordshire PCC
	announced that he was freezing the precept in his area. That seems to be a sensible thing for a Conservative PCC to do.

Menzies Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend understand that many of us believe that, in the matter of Syrian refugees, the United Kingdom, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has a particular obligation? How can it be that we are not able to accept some of the children who have suffered so grievously—traumatised, orphaned and, in some cases, disabled—as a result of the unrest in Syria? Surely this is a matter for humanity on the part of the Government, or are we to allow our moral compass to be set by Mr Nigel Farage?

Theresa May: As I said in answer to the shadow Home Secretary, the UK has a good record in supporting hundreds of thousands of refugees in the region. I have heard the concern expressed on several occasions in this place by Members on both sides of the House on the specific issue of vulnerable refugees, and as I said in response to the shadow Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and I are considering what further the UK might do.

Jonathan Ashworth: Earlier, the policing Minister said he wanted police forces to do more to increase the recruitment of black and minority ethnic officers—I think he said the College of Policing should show some “early energies”. Why does he not go a step further and introduce a legal requirement for every force to increase the number of black and minority ethnic officers serving our communities?

Damian Green: In no area of the public sector do we introduce quotas of the type the hon. Gentleman suggests—he will recognise as well as anyone that they could cause at least as many problems as they solve—but I agree that we need to do more, which is precisely why the College of Policing is taking practical steps to look at the best way we can achieve this.

David Davis: May I press the Home Secretary on her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) about the Police Federation? On the one hand, Normington made proposals that required legislation, but on the other hand, there are examples of the federation promoting injustice that Normington gave no answer to. Is there not a clear requirement for the Government to act on this matter?

Theresa May: As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), the Police Federation is considering its response to the Normington review, and I look forward to seeing what it proposes to bring forward as a result of its consideration. The Home Office stands ready to make the necessary changes to enable the federation to put in place the right structure to ensure that it is truly representative of police officers.

David Lammy: The Independent Police Complaints Commission cannot suspend officers, it cannot compel them to give interviews, it cannot prosecute them and its budget is smaller than
	that of the Met’s complaints department. Given what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions, is it not time to reform this organisation so that we have a proper, independent, efficient investigatory body looking at the minority of police officers who offend?

Damian Green: It is absolutely time to reform and improve the IPCC, which is precisely why the Government have given it not just a bigger budget, but more powers, under legislation currently passing through Parliament, so that we can achieve reforms that make it efficient and large enough to do the very important job we ask it to do.

Andrew Jones: Each year, more than 1 million women suffer from domestic abuse, more than 300,000 are sexually assaulted and 60,000 are raped. These are shocking numbers. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to tackle violence against women?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should all remain concerned about the fact that violence, particularly domestic violence, against women has continued at levels unchanged for some time now. The Government have ring-fenced funding—for example, to support the specialist local domestic and sexual violence advisers and advocates—and made changes to the law, for example introducing domestic violence protection orders to ensure that the victim can stay in their home and that it is the perpetrator who has to leave it when action is taken. So support is being given in a number of areas.

David Winnick: Since the Home Secretary has accepted that there is much understandable concern across the House about the Syrian situation, would it not be far better for the House to reach a unanimous agreement on Wednesday, instead of dividing, given that we all basically want the same outcome, which is to assist as far as possible victims of violence and terror in Syria?

Theresa May: Indeed, it would be good if the House could come together and send a clear message, which is why I have said we will put before the House, and ensure it is aware of, our proposal on this matter. The Foreign Secretary and I continue to work on that.

Alun Cairns: The Government have taken significant steps to combat online child abuse, working with the police, technology companies and independent charities and experts, but an intensified risk is now posed by the hidden internet software Tor. What action can the Government take?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend has identified an important problem, that of Tor—The Onion Router—which is a secret part of the web. I hope that he will be reassured to learn that one of the specific tasks given to the industry by the UK-US joint taskforce, which I chair along with the assistant Attorney-General of the United States, is that of finding a way to root out criminality from secret parts of the web which are accessible to the terrible criminals who seek to exploit children online.

Points of Order

George Galloway: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. While infatuated with the king’s horses and men in the first world war, the Education Secretary is less keen to talk, at least in detail, about the Kings Science Academy. On 6 January, here in the House, in answer to oral questions, in successive sentences, the Secretary of State—inadvertently, no doubt—misled the House in two important respects. First, he claimed that the police action now being taken at the academy was “a direct result” of his Department’s actions. That is the opposite of the truth. A brave whistleblower caused the police action, and if it had been left to the Secretary of State’s Department, there would have been no police action at all.
	Secondly, and most important, the Secretary of State claimed on 6 January that Mr Alan Lewis—a vice-chairman of the Conservative party, no less—was generously taking a reduction in the income of £6 million that the academy was paying him for rent on the site, which he owns. That too is untrue. At the very least, neither Mr Lewis not the Education Secretary will provide a scintilla of evidence in this regard.
	The Secretary of State is refusing to answer me, Mr Speaker. I do not think that he will refuse to answer you. Will you bring him here to withdraw those misleading statements?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Before I respond to it substantively, I should say that I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced parliamentarian, took steps to notify the Secretary of State for Education of his intention to raise it this afternoon.

George Galloway: indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. As for the substance of his point of order, I simply say to him that every Member of the House is responsible for the accuracy of his or her statements to it. In the event that any error has been made, it is incumbent on the person who makes the error to correct the record. I am not aware of any intention to correct it, but the hon. Gentleman’s point of order has been heard, it is on the record, and I think that, at this stage, the proper thing for me to say is that I wait to see what, if any, response to it there is. We will leave it there for today.

Daniel Kawczynski: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Thursday, the shadow Business Secretary spoke of his concern about the mis-selling of personal accident insurance, and particularly named a company in my constituency, Gee 7 Group, which, he stated,
	“specialises in putting together these dubious arrangements for agencies.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 434.]
	My constituent Mr Jon Pardoe, from the company, has strenuously denied the allegations, in writing and on the telephone, and believes that they have harmed his business and credibility. I very much hope, for the sake of my constituent, that the record can be set straight.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. There was nothing in it on which the Chair can rule, but I see that the shadow Business Secretary is present, and he did indicate to me a desire to respond to it. He now has the opportunity to do so.

Chuka Umunna: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to respond to this point of order. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for notifying me in advance that he wished to raise this matter. As the Secretary of State said, he believed that the broader issues I raised in relation to employment agencies were legitimate; he had also been notified of them. In regard to the company in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I am happy to concede, with hindsight, that it was not fair of me to raise its part in this matter without giving it the opportunity to reply. I regret that, and I apologise to the company for doing it. I am also happy to acknowledge—it is only fair to do so—that it has denied this. I am also pleased that Mr Pardoe has said that, in principle, he disagrees with such arrangements. Beyond that, it would not be proper for me to say anything further, given that the Secretary of State is looking into the broader issue of employment agencies.

Mr Speaker: I do not think there is anything further to say. In fact, to judge by the nodding of heads that is taking place, I think there is a prospect of a refreshing outbreak of amity.

Barry Sheerman: rose—

Mr Speaker: The afternoon would not be complete without a point of order from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who I am sure is determined not to disappoint us in that regard.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance? Over many years, it has been established that Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools reports to this House, rather than to a Minister. Over the weekend, the chief inspector has spoken of “spitting blood” with rage over suggestions from two think-tanks that Ofsted should be reformed and that he was not doing his job sufficiently well. Given that situation, and the fact that the chief inspector reports to the House, what can we do to protect him and his reputation if the Department for Education is treating him in the way that he seems to be suggesting?

Mr Speaker: The fact that that story has moved on significantly over recent days seems self-evidently to make it unnecessary for me to comment on the matter at this stage. We will leave it there.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

[Relevant Documents: 23rd Report from the European Scrutiny Committee of Session 2012-13, HC 86-xxiii, Chapter 11; and 25th Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-xxii, Chapter 1]
	Considered in Committee

[Mr Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Approval of draft decisions under Article 352 of TFEU

Chris Heaton-Harris: I beg to move amendment 4, inpage1,line4,leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	‘(2) The draft decision of the Council of the European Union under Article 352 of TFEU to adopt the Council Regulation on the deposit of the historical archives of the institutions at the European University Institute in Florence (document number 6867/ 13) is approved.
	(2A) The draft decision of the Council of the European Union under Article 352 of TFEU to adopt the Council Regulation establishing for the period 2014-2020 the programme “Europe for Citizens” (document number 12557/13) shall be approved once—
	(a) the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament stating that—
	(i) expenditure under the programme may be used only to fund education about and reflection on the Holocaust, armed conflicts and totalitarian regimes in Europe’s history; and
	(ii) no expenditure under the programme may be used to fund the promotion of European Union citizenship, integration or institutions; and
	(b) following the laying of this report, both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution that the draft decision shall be approved.’.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss:
	Amendment 3, in clause2,page1,line16,leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	‘(2) Except as provided for under subsection (2A), the provisions of this Act come into force on the day on which it is passed.
	(2A) Section 1 comes into force in relation to the draft decision to adopt the Council Regulation establishing for the period 2014-2020 the programme ‘Europe for Citizens’ (document number 12557/13) on whatever day the Secretary of State appoints by order made by statutory instrument.
	(2B) The Secretary of State may only make an order under subsection (2A) if—
	(a) he has laid a statement before both Houses of Parliament stating that no expenditure can take place under ‘Europe for Citizens’ that could influence any European Parliamentary election or referendum in the year prior to such an election or referendum, and
	(b) a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.’.
	Clause stand part.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Today is Holocaust memorial day, and several hon. Members are wearing pins to signify this important date. Through the Holocaust Educational Trust, I have met a number of holocaust
	survivors. It has been a privilege to meet them; it has also been troubling, in a way. It is important that we should celebrate the work that the trust does to remind us of the terrible things that happened on our continent, not that long ago. Through other initiatives, I have met survivors of the Rwandan genocide. Again, that was amazingly troubling. They, too, were amazing people. Those events, and those that might be going on in Syria as we speak, remind us all of the need to remember and to learn from the horrible things that have happened.
	That is the thrust of my amendment. It attempts to get the Government to go back to the negotiating table in Brussels, not to veto this proposal for the Europe for Citizens budget line, but to ensure that
	“expenditure under the programme may be used only to fund education about and reflection on the Holocaust, armed conflicts and totalitarian regimes in Europe’s history; and…no expenditure under the programme may be used to fund the promotion of European Union citizenship, integration or institutions”.
	I would have thought that that was a pretty uncontroversial thing to ask for.
	Let me refresh the memory of the House and explain how we have got to where we are. Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union gives the EU a wide-ranging power to legislate to achieve an objective set out in the EU treaties, if those treaties have not otherwise given the European Union the power to pass such legislation. The UK Government wield a veto over laws proposed on the basis of article 352.
	The European Act 2011 typically requires that, before the Government can give final agreement in the Council of Ministers to a proposed article 352 law, the proposal must be approved by an Act of Parliament. The rationale behind that was to subject the use of that treaty article to case-by-case approval by Parliament, due to the entirely open-ended and therefore unpredictable nature of the power that that gives to the European Union.
	The European Union (Approvals) Bill seeks parliamentary approval for two draft European Union laws based on article 352. The Government have brought forward the Bill because they wish to support the proposals at European Union level, following negotiations on them, and the Council is ready to adopt them. If Parliament does not approve one of them—I am suggesting that it does not approve the Europe for Citizens draft law through the Bill—the Government cannot support the relevant proposal in the Council, and the European Union will not be able to adopt it.
	The other draft European Union law, which would be approved by clause 1(2)(a), is a fairly uncontroversial measure that would require most EU bodies to deposit their historical archives at the European University Institute in Florence. The one that I am concerned with—I spent each one of my 10 years in the European Parliament tabling amendments to take the money out of the budget for this particular budget line—re-establishes the EU spending programme Europe for Citizens over the period from 2014 to 2020.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend refers to a budget line. Will he confirm, as he is greatly experienced in such matters, that in fact the programme that we are discussing this afternoon is but a very small part of the total amount that the European Union spends on communication and general propaganda?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Absolutely. It is a mere fraction. We are talking about it today only because of article 352, which I have already mentioned.
	I feel strongly concerned about this Europe for Citizens line because it has certain requirements that need to be fulfilled before money can be obtained. It wants to build a strong feeling among citizens about belonging to the Union, and it wants to build ever-closer union. Article 3(1) of the draft regulation said that all activities of the Europe for Citizens programme would involve “fostering European citizenship”. Those are all things that go directly against the ethos that the Prime Minister built into his speech at Bloomberg about a year ago.

John Redwood: As it is the clearly expressed wish of this House that we should have a lower EU budget, would it not be strange for the Government not to want to veto something when they can actually stop some spending?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I understand my right hon. Friend’s point, but even if we vetoed the measure completely, the money would remain within the budget we have agreed. A veto will not stop money being spent at EU level, but would signify the intent of the British Government that money should no longer be spent on EU propaganda budget lines and that when we get the opportunity to cull them, we will.
	The draft regulation provides a reference amount for the total budget of the programme over the multi-annual financial framework term of about £154.6 million. That is a reasonable sum of money—

Edward Vaizey: Over seven years.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Over seven years, as my hon. Friend the Minister will continue to remind us. It is very small beer when it comes to European budgets or even the UK budget, but it is quite a large amount of money in general terms. The UK Government will contribute between £1.5 million and £2.5 million.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that whether it is a big or small part of the European budget is immaterial? If money is being wasted or spent in an inappropriate manner, that should be stopped.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I agree. I estimate that the UK would contribute £17.8 million, so in times when we are a bit stretched for cash I think we should at least ask for better value for that money from the European Union.

John Redwood: It is a very large sum of money. As it takes more than 100 taxpayers to contribute £1 million in tax, on average, we are talking about thousands of taxpayers who will have to contribute to make up this sum. If we blocked the measure, although the money could theoretically be spent on something else, it would be made more difficult and would send a clear message that we do not want this spending.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I concur with my right hon. Friend. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I used to table amendments to try to cull such budget
	lines. There was a Europe for Citizen’s programme between 2007 and 2013, which was the previous multi-annual financial framework period. It had a slightly bigger budget and, essentially, public funding was granted to various organisations promoting European integration and a federal European state. I think that most people in this House would struggle not only with funding pro-European propaganda but with using taxpayers’ money to fund politics in general.

Bob Stewart: If the money was not spent on citizenship, would we get more money to commemorate the holocaust and—of particular interest to me—what happened in the Balkans when I was there?

Chris Heaton-Harris: That is the purpose behind my amendment. I understand that only once, or possibly twice, has an agreement in general been struck at the Council that something will go through before someone has reopened the debate about how the money should be spent, and the purpose of my amendment is to do that again. We could just veto the money and kill the programme directly, but part of the programme is truly valuable. That is what the European Commission does in many of its budget strands: it connects a small amount for something good and valuable to a big amount for something that is a waste of money that we would not necessarily stand for.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my hon. Friend agree that as there is no such thing as a European citizen but only members of individual EU member states, to have any fund that supports the concept of EU citizenry is absolute nonsense?

Chris Heaton-Harris: It would be a bit of a surprise if I did not agree with my hon. Friend, whose constituency is next door to mine.
	I believe that one could honestly make the argument that the programme has failed unbelievably badly. Over the past seven years, a group of organisations has received money from it. The European Movement, which states that its objective is to
	“contribute to the establishment of a united, federal Europe”,
	was awarded the best part of £1.5 million.
	The French think-tank, Notre Europe, the Jacques Delors Institute—I will not go into as much detail on this as I did on Second Reading, as my hon. Friend the Minister is now completely up to speed with how moneys from this budget line are spent—was set up by the former European Commission President and champions his vision of a European Union that is a federation of nation states. Over the last multi-annual financial framework period, it was awarded the best part of £1.87 million from the Europe for Citizens programme. The Brussels-based Union of European Federalists got the best part of £500,000. There are also other organisations that I did not mention last time. There is a wonderful—I say that in a sarcastic tone—French organisation called Confrontations Europe. Its website says:
	“On April 2012, Confrontations Europe celebrated its 20 years of existence and dedication to the European ideal…Confrontations Europe has become an important network of citizens and European players, a think tank renowned in Paris and Brussels and an active civil lobby of European general interest to the institutions”—
	that is, the European institutions. Everyone here will be pleased to know that the body’s founding chairman, Philippe Herzog, a French former academic and politician, was a member of the French Communist party from 1965 to 1996.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend said that everyone here would approve of that; has he noticed that, as far as I can see, only two Opposition Back Benchers have bothered to come to the debate on this important subject?

John Cryer: Yes, but it is the quality that counts.

Chris Heaton-Harris: As the hon. Gentleman says, we have the cream of the Opposition here. The Opposition’s economic policy would be much more interesting if the hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), and for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), were on the Front Bench, not the Back Benches.
	You will be pleased to know, Mr Gray, that Confrontations Europe has a youth initiative called YES-EU!—Young Europeans Supporting EU!—and is engaging in a campaign aimed at the upcoming European parliamentary elections. We are talking about a budget line that pays for people to try to influence, with their pro-EU stance, the parties standing in those elections.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will my hon. Friend remind us whether it would be possible for anybody who promoted the individual nation states to get money from that pot?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Unfortunately, regulations prohibit those perhaps Eurosceptic organisations that are pro-nation state from bidding for money; they would be ruled out of order.
	Under the last multi-annual financial framework, Confrontations Europe got about £1 million from the Europe for Citizens programme, just to support its running costs—not to carry out any programmes, for which it also bids for money.
	Why is this important? I have helpful analysis in a letter that the Minister submitted to the European Scrutiny Committee back on 24 April 2012; I know that he remembers every single word of it. On the structure of the Europe for Citizens programme, he says:
	“some 60% of the funds would be allocated to democratic engagement in the European institutions”—
	that is, to European federalist propaganda lines. Some 20% would be
	“for remembrance activities (mostly concerning the victims of World War II); 10% for the analysis, dissemination, and evaluation of results; and the remaining 10% for programme management.”
	My amendment would therefore be quite a big ask at European Council level; it would take the 60% that goes to organisations that I am not particularly keen on—I am sure that many in this House are not, either—and put it towards future remembrance activities.
	I have a question for the Minister, because the next paragraph of his letter troubles me slightly:
	“We would seek to maintain the prioritisation of civic participation over remembrance”.
	I wonder if that is really what we are meant to do, at this time, in our negotiations at Council level. If we were not even trying to change the budget line at the time when it was being discussed, I would have concerns, especially considering the importance of this year and what we are remembering. Perhaps it is a civil servant thing.

Edward Vaizey: As we debated this on Second Reading, my hon. Friend will be aware that we increased the budget line for commemoration and remembrance from 4% of the budget to 20%. I think that that is very good progress.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I concur with the Minister—it is very good progress—but I would like to see it at 80% to 100%, hence my amendment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is not good progress at all—it is miserable progress, as we have a veto, so we can say, “No, no, no.”

Chris Heaton-Harris: I had a horrible vision for a second of my hon. Friend in drag, dressed as a former Prime Minister saying exactly those words. However, we can do exactly that and, realistically, I believe that we should do so.

Edward Vaizey: My understanding is that my hon. Friend is not saying, “No, no, no.” He is simply saying “More, more, more” for commemoration. My answer to his question was simply that we did get more, more, more for commemoration.

Chris Heaton-Harris: That is a fair point, and I am asking for more, more, more for commemoration. Indeed, the House has the power to send the Minister back, back, back to the negotiating table to deliver that.
	The Minister will know that bids for the money have been requested by the European Commission. On its website it asks for
	“Organisations focusing on the common values of the EU: raising citizens’ awareness of the importance of maintaining and promoting democratic values in the EU”—
	blah, blah, blah—
	“who have made a significant contribution to later stages of European construction.”
	The Commission gives money, which I do not think that it should under the financial regulation of the budget, to organisations just to run themselves so that they can bid for more money from EU projects. Because bids are open, even though the second line of the Commission document says that that has to go through the national Parliaments processes, it feels like business as usual—as if this is a done deal and there is nothing to be concerned about.
	That leads to my final point, which is a general concern about what is going on when it comes to education, youth culture and sports councils. The council of 16 December 2013 adopted conclusions on the contribution of sport to the European Union economy, in particular addressing youth unemployment and social inclusion. The conclusions present sport as a tool to address the social challenges facing young people across Europe. The Netherlands informed the council that it
	considered that there were insufficient cross-border aspects to justify action at EU level, but said that it would not block anything because, essentially, all the other countries, including the UK, were content with the conclusions.
	It is that constant drip, drip—the taking away of power; the general drift—that is the problem. In this case, we have a veto and we can do something that is a bit stronger, and I think that the people of our country would expect us to do that.

Andrew Turner: Is my hon. Friend saying that Ministers are not stopping civil servants driving that programme on?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I would not like to say that, because I am completely convinced that the Minister is 100% engaged with this regulation, and fully aware of past issues. However, I have been in meetings in which Members of the European Parliament—as I was then—sit down with staff of the European Commission and, indeed, member state civil servants to negotiate a trialogue that sets out—[Interruption.] No, it does not do that. It sets out to negotiate a deal at different stages, and one wonders what the political engagement with those civil servants might be, because when the deal is done it is done in that room at that very time.
	However, that is by the bye. I have concerns about the Europe for Citizens line, and I hope that I have outlined them to the House. I certainly intend to press my amendment, and I very much welcome support for it.

John Cryer: I was not going to speak, but I thought I might as well have a go since I am here. I feel inspired by the words of the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) who moved amendment 4, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. The key paragraph is that
	“expenditure under the programme may be used only to fund education about and reflection on the Holocaust, armed conflicts and totalitarian regimes in Europe’s history”.
	Amendment 3 in the name of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is also perfectly reasonable. However, particularly at this time of year with Holocaust memorial day when the work of organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust is in full flow, it is worth remembering that there are now fewer and fewer holocaust survivors. A number who survived the death camps came to east London, where my constituency is, and that generation is now disappearing. There are ever fewer of them going into schools, as they do in my constituency, and as they do in many schools in many constituencies represented in this House, to talk about what happened to them and their families.
	The amendment seems perfectly reasonable, although I would prefer it if decisions on where those resources were spent were made by national Governments, not by the European Union, since we were all involved in that conflict and in liberating the camps in 1945.

Bob Stewart: In this 100th anniversary of the first world war, would it not be entirely appropriate for Europe to commemorate collectively the disaster that happened between 1914 and 1918, and some of the money from this budget line could be used for that?

John Cryer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and according to the amendment, it could be so used. If the amendment were agreed and put into operation, I do not think there would be anything to stop these resources being used to remember what happened 100 years ago and in the following four years.
	On the one hand we have a proposal that says the resources should be used only for commemorating armed conflict and, specifically, the holocaust, and on the other hand the proposal from the European Union is that we have a broad-brush approach and use them for promoting European citizenship. As the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said, European citizenship does not exist. European citizens do not exist. There are citizens of individual countries, but not citizens of the European Union. Basically, the original draft means that we could be allowing resources to be given to some swivel-eyed Euro-fanatic in an office in Brussels or Strasbourg, who will then spend the money on whatever pet project happens to walk along at the time.

Edward Vaizey: rose—

John Cryer: I will give way in a moment.
	A few years ago when I was the Member of Parliament for Hornchurch, I wrote to the London office of the European Union, asking specific questions about where resources were going on different education and propaganda campaigns. I never had a response, despite the fact that I sent a follow-up a few months later. It never answered a single question in the letter.

Richard Shepherd: By an Act of Parliament, we are European citizens. It was passed in this House by a Conservative Government, and when asked whether the Queen was a citizen, the then Home Secretary said, “I see no reason why not.” We are European citizens by the will of this Parliament, and that is what many of us here want to defeat: this very concept of being cluttered along into something we never wanted to be part of.

John Cryer: I wish I had not stood up now. I feel really depressed. I wish I had just stayed in my office and stuck to working. Perhaps the Minister might like to comment on that.

Edward Vaizey: I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman feels depressed. It may be the tone of voice used by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd). He does not usually sound as down as that.
	The hon. Gentleman has come to the debate somewhat late, but he referred to swivel-eyed Euro-fanatics. I can assure him that organisations such as the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, the Community Service Volunteers and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations—all British-based charities—have benefited from this programme.

John Cryer: Many other organisations have benefited from the programme, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Daventry. Taxpayers’ money is being given to people such as Jacques Delors, who has a very narrow interpretation of what the European Union
	should be. The phrase “Euro-federalism” is widely used, but I think that it is a misnomer. People such as Delors want the European Union to move not towards a federal structure, but towards a highly centralised structure. That has been the whole direction of travel of the campaigns led by Delors and many other founders of the European Union, or the Common Market as it then was. They want us to move not towards a federation, but towards a highly centralised and quite autocratic structure.
	I want to make one thing clear. I think that the debate on the European Union—we have seen elements of this today—is fairly irrational. If someone stands up on a public platform or in this House and praises the European Union, they are told that they are betraying our sovereignty and 1,000 years of history. If they criticise the European Union, however, they are condemned as a nationalist, a xenophobe and a little Englander. The reality is that my objections to the European Union are based on internationalism and the value of democracy, because the European Union has a marked tendency to be anti-democratic. I see that in what we are discussing today. That is why I think that the two amendments are perfectly reasonable and why I will be supporting them.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
	I, too, have tabled an amendment—amendment 3 —which is very straightforward. Some 60% of the money that will be available in this pot will be used for the promotion of the federalist agenda. Those of us who listened to the Minister’s recent intervention should have been deeply concerned that otherwise politically independent charities are in receipt of money from that budget, because in order to receive it they have to agree to support the integration of Europe.

Edward Vaizey: I fail to see—I could also have intervened on this point during the previous speech—how grants to organisations that want to encourage twinning between towns on the European continent could be said to be encouraging a European federalist agenda.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has mentioned twinning, because it is dealt with under the democratic engagement and civic participation strand of the programme. The Commission’s work programme states in relation to that:
	“By mobilizing citizens at local and EU levels to debate on concrete issues on the European political agenda, this measure will seek to promote civic participation in the Union policy making process and develop opportunities for societal engagement and volunteering at Union level.”
	What the Minister has failed to understand is that they use something that is said to be innocuous, such as twinning, and dish out a little money so that people can go to other countries within the European Union and meet other people, but they have to be doing so in advancement of the European ideal as laid down by Brussels. If they want to have twinning to set forth Eurosceptic ideas, they will not get any money. It is set out in the documentation itself, which the Minister ought to be aware of, that twinning is not an apolitical activity under this programme; it is using taxpayers’ money to further a political scheme.
	With regard to amendment 3, I think that it is important that no money should be used in an election period to advantage one party against another. In the United Kingdom that will be particularly sensitive if we have a referendum on our membership of the European Union. If we do that, one side—the side that wishes to get out—will have to raise its own money from the private sector. It will not get any Government or European grants. It will be dependent on the good will and generosity of individuals and corporations across the United Kingdom. However, the other side might get shed loads of money shovelled to it by the European Union.
	The Minister, when he answers, might question whether that is a reality and whether I am raising straw men to knock down with what I have to say, but I have looked into the matter and examined, for example, the funding that goes to the European Movement. The European Movement has received about £1.5 million from that programme. It is very committed to the European ideal. It promotes it and argues for it, but it also uses its money in an election period to promote voting against a particular party. The European Movement website includes an undated paper, briefing paper 11, about the rotten planks of the UK Independence party platform. I did a bit of Sherlock Holmes work to try to date briefing paper 11. As you might expect, Mr Gray, being an expert mathematician, it helpfully comes between briefing paper 10 and briefing paper 12. Briefing paper 10, of December 2008, was entitled “How Britain can join the euro”—a very prescient, helpful, wise paper by the European Movement—and briefing paper 12 was an analysis of the election results in 2009. Between those, a paper was issued on the rotten planks of UKIP.
	It seems to me that the European Movement must have used some of the £1.5 million received from the European Union to attack a specific political party in the run-up to European elections. It strikes at the very core of democracy, if one side of the argument has access to very substantial sums of money in political terms. The Minister has said that it is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, and that may well be true, but for a British general election, €20 million of European Union money is a lot.

Helen Goodman: Since the hon. Gentleman seems so concerned about big money in politics, why is he supporting the Government on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I almost always end up on the same side as the hon. Lady. She makes the point that I was just moving on to, so I am deeply grateful to her. It seems to me eccentric of Her Majesty’s Government to go to so much trouble to pass the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, which I support thoroughly, to control the spending of third parties in our elections, when—suddenly, lo and behold—the European Union, whose law is superior to British law, can come along with a whole pile of money for groups outside the control of the British Parliament or the British people and can unlevel, unbalance and skew the playing field in favour of one side, particularly in a referendum vote. Indeed, that has already happened.
	We know that 60% of the programme goes to the advancement of the European ideal, but that ideal is perverted to include even the most modest things, such as twinning. For a charity to be able to spend any of that money, it has to sign up to the political objective, so however harmless it is in any other respect—however modest its aims, and however apolitical it is—it has, in one respect, to be a pro-European charity to apply for the money. The programme goes a stage further, however, in that it hands out money directly to participants in a political process, and that undermines what we as democrats are trying to do in this House.
	I tabled amendment 3 to try to prevent that from happening, if it is really the Government’s wish to push ahead with the programme. If the Government have any sense, they would abandon the whole scheme. They should remember that they have a veto, and they should try to find some backbone.

John Redwood: I rise to support my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). It is right that the Government should go back and exercise their veto. I will briefly make the case for the use of that veto. We urge the Government to do so on this issue not only because of the merits of the case—they have been well explained by my two hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer)-—but because we in this House and outside it are deeply frustrated by the fact that the European Union’s powers, which are already too large, are increasing day by day through court judgments, directives and regulations, with nothing being done to contain them.
	The Labour party gave away 168 vetoes on crucial policies, so there are now huge areas on which we cannot respond to our constituents’ wishes to change or improve things, because we are under the control of European law. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) laughs, but she has no idea of the damage that the Labour party has done and of the pent-up frustrations in the country. We cannot have our own policies on energy, borders or criminal justice because powers have been given away.
	Today, we are considering a small area on which we still have a veto. Unless the European Union’s policy is perfect, surely the Government must use that veto. We must either use it or lose it. We need to show that wherever we have a veto, we have a voice and an independent view.

John Cryer: What the right hon. Gentleman says about the veto is true, but will he admit that the veto was originally surrendered in principle by Mrs Thatcher in the Single European Act of 1986? That is what broke the principle.

John Redwood: Yes, some vetoes were surrendered in the Single European Act. I advised against that at the time and, for once, my advice was not accepted.

Helen Goodman: Did you vote for it?

John Redwood: I did not vote for it because I was not a Member of the House when the legislation was passed—I am not that old. I was against giving up the veto then,
	but the former Prime Minister accepted it because it was in very limited areas. It has subsequently expanded into a huge number of far more important areas, which has led to the passions and frustrations that we hear about every day from our constituents in e-mails and letters and in conversations on the doorstep.
	There is an added reason why the veto should be used with respect to this proposal, as has been explained eloquently by the three Members who have made speeches already. The European Union is presuming to intervene in formerly democratic politics in our countries and to build on the technical definition of “citizen” that has been embedded in recent treaties with the idea that people’s primary loyalty should be to the European Union and not to their member state. With these programmes, it is seeking to disrupt loyalty, accountability and sovereignty in its member states still further. This is propaganda on the taxes and expenditure that we do not need at a time of austerity. It is unforgivable that money is being raised from our hard-working constituents and passed to the European Union for propaganda.
	I urge the Committee to reject the Minister’s proposal. I urge the Committee to stand up for the British people and for the proper use of taxpayers’ money. I urge the Committee to oppose propaganda on the taxes. I urge the Committee to say to the Government, “When you have a veto, for goodness’ sake use it, because we do not have enough vetoes left.”

David Nuttall: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Gray.
	I will not repeat the admirable and persuasive arguments that my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made in promoting their amendments, but I do support those amendments. I add my agreement to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). I also support what was said from the Opposition Benches by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer).
	My opposition to the Europe for Citizens proposal and my support for amendments 4 and 3 are founded on the cost and the underlying principle. When budgets in the UK are being reduced, it is entirely wrong for us to be contributing funds to this European programme. If we were to ask our constituents, I am pretty sure that no constituency in the country would support the idea of UK taxpayers’ money going towards the promotion of EU citizenship. We have all, whether we like it or not—I certainly do not like it—been citizens of the European Union since 1993, following the passage into law of the Maastricht treaty.
	The EU spends billions of euros to promote itself and justify its own existence. As I made clear in my first intervention this afternoon, the proposal that we are discussing is a very small part of the total amount that is spent by the EU to justify its existence. It funds publications, films, think-tanks and lobby groups, but only if they support the idea of further European Union integration.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend is making a strong and compelling case. Does he agree that it is rather insidious that one of the requirements inserted into the pension arrangements of former EU
	politicians and bureaucrats is actively to promote the EU and European citizenship? They have to do that to receive their pension.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I entirely agree that it is insidious. Indeed, we have seen in the other place in recent days that a lot of their lordships who receive pensions from the EU are voting to prevent the people of my constituency and my hon. Friend’s from having their say on whether they want us to remain a member of the EU.
	I now want to turn, Mr Gray—sorry, Mr Robertson; you have changed in the twinkling of an eye—to article 5 of the proposal that we are being asked to approve. The money in question will be available not just to member states but to acceding countries, candidate countries and potential countries. Not only existing member states but all the others that the EU would like to draw into the net will be able to put their hands into the pot. The money will be used to persuade them and their citizens of the benefits of the EU.
	To back up what was said earlier about access to the programme, article 6 provides that it shall be open to those wanting to promote
	“European citizenship and integration, in particular local and regional authorities and organisations, twinning committees, European public policy research organisations (think-tanks), civil society organisations…and cultural, youth, educational and research organisations.”
	Money could be taken from the fund only by those who want to promote EU unity and the EU ideal. Someone who, like me, believes that the citizens of Europe would be better off if we had a Europe of independent nation states working together where it was necessary to do so, and trading with each other as neighbours, would get nothing from the fund. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said, it is likely that they would find themselves up against a political candidate who was funded by the EU and supported, perhaps indirectly, to put forward the case for EU citizenship.
	I support the amendments entirely and urge the House to vote for them.

Richard Shepherd: First, I wish to express my appreciation to my hon. Friends who have tabled these useful amendments.
	I have great difficulty with the Government’s position. They tell us that they are in a process of evaluating the EU’s competencies, functions and so on. I guess the process is rather bogged down in the sands at the moment, but no doubt it can be lubricated with yet more money. To many people in this country, the EU has become just a money trap that has built itself on transfer payments made to other nations. It is as simple as that. Those who queue up for that money have expectations of yet more money, acting as the glue that binds together this quasi-state.
	I have lived through all the statements from hon. Friends on the Front Benches. “No essential loss of sovereignty” was one of the great clarion calls of an earlier phase of this debate, but this measure is now being brought forward as a little squeak, without any opposition from the Government Front Bench. It is extraordinary; here we are going through a European monetary crisis, solvency questions and all the rest, but it is so automatically the case that the British Government will go in and support almost every initiative focused on
	or brought forward from the European Union. The country cries out, “Why? Why are we transferring money when we need money? Why are we supporting these endeavours?”
	I have a book at home that is rather threadbare now. It is called “Palgrave’s Golden Treasury”. There is a poem in it called “Dane-Geld” and—you might remember this, Mr Robertson—
	“once you have paid him the Dane-Geld
	You never get rid of the Dane.”
	Of course, this is not about Danes but about a principle in life. If we say “no,” it ceases; if we open our arms and say, “Well, it is a cheap price today,” they come back for more. Over 35 years in Parliament, they have done nothing but come back for more. I have heard Front-Benchers issuing praise and saying, “But these are important things, aren’t they?” Yes. Buried in the agreement there is something that the entire House would accede to—the horror that was the holocaust. Therefore the House, in its generosity, mindful of all the other pressures on the British taxpayer and the people of this country, would accede to that. However, consider all the things that this arrangement is used for. It is not about the holocaust for Europe; this is the onward march for some sort of new political construct.
	We were made citizens in 1992 in the Maastricht treaty. It is called the treaty on European Union, and in it was the question, included in the title, of citizenship. Citizenship is to me a matter of our own emotional context, the country we believe in, and what it is we are. That is citizenship. It is not the tick of a box in the Foreign Office or Brussels. It is about who we are and what we feel about our country.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that the European Union is not so much a quasi-state as a virtually emerged state? It now has a Parliament, a Court, a currency, a Government and citizenry. It presumes to be a state.

Richard Shepherd: It pretends to be a state. It has all the trappings that we fund it to have to be that absurd construction—and it is an absurd construction if we believe in democracy. There is no relationship between that construction and democracy.

Kate Hoey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it seems strange that although those on the Government Front Bench have said they want to bring back powers from Europe and will have a referendum—something we all want; well, I certainly do—and although we have here an opportunity to say no to something that the British people overwhelmingly want to say no to, we get excuses and all sorts of things to put the measure through? [Interruption.]

Richard Shepherd: I hear some squawking on the Opposition Benches, but I think what the hon. Lady says is true for most British people. How does one reconcile the collapse of the Department of entertainments into acquiescence? That is the worry.

Edward Vaizey: rose—

Richard Shepherd: I will give way, of course, to my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Edward Vaizey: I am grateful not only to be promoted to the Privy Council but for the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend. Given his concern over wasting money, will he acknowledge that the Government succeeded in getting the first ever reduction in the budget of the European Union?

Richard Shepherd: Of course I acknowledge that. It is what I expect a British Government to do. That the Minister holds that out as if it is some sort of triumph is amazing.

Edward Vaizey: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Richard Shepherd: No. We have a long way to go, as the Minister well knows. [Interruption.] I do not want to have a chit-chat with him outside the rules of the Committee. I am trying to give the Ministry backbone.
	I cannot see how the measure is compatible with what the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has said. We are in the beginnings of a negotiation. The Foreign Office is supposedly trawling to find the balance of competencies and whether it is right. By and large, surprisingly—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has made a study—it has found that it is about right so far. That is all tosh, and hon. Members know it.
	We are playing out a shadow boxing match over what are said to be small sums of money. Governments get very grand. No sum of money is small to those who do not have it, but to Governments, no sum of money is too large to tax people. I am not making a case for not doing good things; I am making a case that was made formidably by the hon. Members who have tabled amendments, which the Committee should support.
	Hon. Members are here to represent the British people. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and I have pointed out, the House agreed that we were to be citizens of the EU, with all the assurances of no essential loss of sovereignty. “Citizens of the EU” is a hollow expression, because the relationship comes from who we are, what we feel and the context in which we grow up.

Bob Stewart: When I was a new MP, I seem to remember coming to the Dispatch Box and swearing loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. We are citizens of this country first—[Interruption.] Forgive me. We may be subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, but we are equally citizens of Europe. I know which one takes priority.

Richard Shepherd: I am with my hon. Friend on these matters.
	The dissolution in the sense of ourselves in the past 30 years that I have been in Parliament is not entirely down to me. The disillusionment is partly down to the grinding of the EU; its false prospectuses; its lies, lies and lies; and its belief in the objective of creating the dream of a Monsieur Delors or a group of European politicians of the earlier part of the second half of the last century. It is not my dream. It was undoubtedly the dream of a part-generation of British politicians. It has been so encompassing and encased in bonds of steel and iron that Ministers and shadow Ministers sit on the Front Benches not even thinking it necessary to say, on a small matter such as the Bill, “Why? Stop it. No. Don’t go on.”
	I urge hon. Members not to pay the Danegeld or to support that message. They should reject it. They should let the Government know that the purpose of Parliament is to ensure a proper negotiation on competences and what we are about. Do not give money to the Danes because they will only come back for more.

Helen Goodman: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I should declare an interest: I am half Danish—my mother is Danish and my father is English.
	The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who has moved amendment 4, was right to remind the Committee that today is Holocaust memorial day. As well as remembering those horrific episodes, it is extremely important that people learn from them. In my constituency, I have found that holocaust education has been particularly useful in the learning of young people who might be tempted to get involved with racist organisations. They have learnt that what begins as a small piece of prejudice can grow into something very dangerous indeed.
	Her Majesty’s Opposition will not support the hon. Member for Daventry in the Lobby this afternoon. He is of course right that archiving is important and uncontroversial, and that remembrance is extremely important, but it is not adequate to say that we do not want to educate our citizens on the institutions of Europe when they have a role in taking part in elections to the European Parliament. They need to understand what powers it has and does not have,so that they are able to make intelligent decisions. I am sorry, but I am not convinced, as I said on Second Reading, that knowing more will mean that people will be uncritical. I think that if they know more they will perhaps understand the case for some of the reforms.
	I wish to remind Government Members that in this country we have a serious problem with the low participation of young people in democratic processes. In the previous general election, only 44%—fewer than half—of 18 to 24-year-olds voted, while 76% of those over the age of 65 voted. I would have thought that it is common sense that people need to understand the institutions they vote on and the influence they can have by doing so. Government Members have as keen an interest as anybody in educating people, particularly young people, so that they participate and take these matters seriously.

Stewart Jackson: Not for the first time, the hon. Lady puts her finger on the nub of this debate. She is supporting exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd). There is a direct causal link between the reduction in election turnout and the transfer of sovereignty from our UK Parliament to the supranational body and the growth in power of the pseudo-nation of the European Union. That is why so many people, including young people, are bitterly cynical about the power they have with which to influence politics. Decisions that affect their lives every day are taken by that supranational body and not by our sovereign national Parliament.

Helen Goodman: I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view. However, there are some organisations and institutions in the modern world that have an interest in undermining democracy. There are large global corporations that do
	not wish to be accountable to any legal framework, whether European or domestic. It is vital that we build a sense of responsibility and citizenship among our citizens, particularly our young people.

John Redwood: If the hon. Lady is such an advocate of democratic engagement on Europe, why will her party not give the British people a vote on whether they want to stay in it?

Helen Goodman: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a completely different issue and is not what we are discussing today. In fact, I am not even sure whether dilating on the matter would be in order, and I do not wish to cut across the Chair.
	It is sensible for there to be education on the EU institutions, particularly for young people. The themes of the projects listed in the introduction to the unnumbered regulation are not as hon. Members have described. They are:
	“education, vocational training and youth, sport, culture and the audiovisual sector, fundamental rights and freedoms, social inclusion, gender equality, combating discrimination, research and innovation, information society, enlargement and the external action of the Union.”

Andrew Turner: Is the hon. Lady saying that European law permits anyone, on either side of the Europe debate, to get money from Europe, or is it limited to people who are in favour of Europe?

Helen Goodman: If the hon. Gentleman will allow, I will come on to that point and ask the Minister some questions about the process and scope for amending the regulation.
	Hon. Members should find article 2 of the regulation encouraging. Its aim is to
	“encourage democratic and civic participation of citizens at Union level, by developing citizens’ understanding of the Union policy making-process and promoting opportunities for societal”
	and intercultural
	“engagement and volunteering at Union level.”
	That is not the vision some Government Members are presenting.
	I turn now to amendment 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I think he did some philosophy at university. He is trying to prove a negative here. There is no way the Government can say whether a piece of expenditure would influence elections to the European Parliament. It is logically impossible to do what he asks. It is important to remember that the money is not for political parties.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the hon. Lady therefore explain the European Movement putting out a leaflet specifically attacking UKIP in an election period? That is party political funding from the EU.

Helen Goodman: With the information available to him, the hon. Gentleman cannot show that money from the European Parliament funded that leaflet. As he knows, the European Movement has a whole array of sources of funding.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Let us try something else. I have here a list of organisations that received money in 2007 for the purposes of fostering European citizenship. How about the European Liberal Forum, which received €107,000 that year? Was that political?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman’s point is not pertinent to the discussion, because the question is this: how will money be spent in the future? The Minister should tell us what measures he will take to prevent it from going to such political organisations. On Second Reading, I asked him many questions that I hope he will answer this afternoon. What will the application process be? Who will get the money? How can we spread it across the whole country, not just organisations that have been habitual beneficiaries, so as to spread an understanding of Europe? Government Members display such understanding in great measure, but they are much better informed about the mechanisms of the EU than most people in this country, and I do not understand why they want to keep this knowledge to themselves. It is profoundly undemocratic.
	I agreed, however, with the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) when he raised the issue of money going to non-EU member states under the theme of enlargement and work. It seems to me that whereas we have settled European policies on, for example, education and culture, enlargement is much more contentious.
	That brings me to my next point. I am not going to ask the Minister what the process would be if he wanted to veto the regulation, because it is patently absurd to say that because we have a veto, we should use it. There are other matters relating to Europe that I think it would be far more important to veto than this. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are tempting me down a path down which I think it would be wrong for me to go. What I want to ask the Minister is this: what would be the process for amending the regulation, rather than rejecting it in its entirety? We need to get on with some of this work, and we do not want too much delay.

Edward Vaizey: There is no process for amending the regulation. We would have to vote it down and then start again.

Helen Goodman: I am grateful to the Minister for that information.
	There are weaknesses in the regulation, such as the one identified by the hon. Member for Bury North, but I think it entirely reasonable for us to have a process allowing voluntary organisations to bid for funds so that people can learn about the European Union. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has provided extremely positive feedback on the grants. It refers to
	“Support for participation and democratic engagement. People’s wellbeing…employment, social cohesion and sustainable development. Impact of EU policies in societies”.
	What could be more neutral than that? The NCVO also refers to
	“Exchange of expertise…Building capacity of voluntary and community organisations.”
	Conservative Members claim to support the big society, but now they seem to want to vote down money that would promote it. Finally, the NCVO refers to
	“Establishing links between local authorities and community organisations in different countries”.
	Although there are weaknesses in the regulation, I think that the positives outweigh the problems raised by Conservative Members.
	I should like the Minister to answer these questions. What will the application system be? How will he ensure that the money goes to groups throughout the country, and is not concentrated on small and highly politicised groups? I should also like to know whether he has discovered the answer to the question I asked him earlier about the archiving: why are we locking up the European documents for 30 years—which is what we do with documents in London—and who will have access to them in the meantime?

Edward Vaizey: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
	We had a lively Second Reading debate on the Bill last week, and I commented at the time that the Chamber was full of the House’s most prominent European experts. I think it slightly unfortunate—although I do not blame anyone in particular—that today’s debate falls at the same time as the annual parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. Members will be aware that the Council of Europe advertises itself as an organisation consisting of 47 countries and 820 million citizens. I gather than some of our leading experts on Europe are in Athens, debating matters of European import. It is interesting that their expertise is being put to good use.

John Redwood: Is the Minister a little disappointed that despite the absence of some of our experts, there are still plenty here to tease him?

Edward Vaizey: I merely note that the experts who were present for the Second Reading debate are experts on so many European matters that they are spread thinly, but able to participate in important European debates wherever they may take place in Europe. There arises from that an important point, which was made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch. [Hon. Members: “Leyton and Wanstead.”] I mean the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer).
	Debates such as this are sometimes painted in black and white. It is suggested that if one opposes an initiative from the European Union, one is anti-European, and if one supports it, one is fanatically pro-European, but things are actually much more subtle than that. I think we are all pro-Europeans in this House. It is just that some of us are more critical than others of the European Union and its regulations and assemblies.
	We are debating two important amendments tabled by two of our foremost European experts. For clarity, I should say that we are debating only the Europe for Citizens programme. The archive measure appears to be relatively uncontroversial—I say that advisedly—and therefore able to be passed without much comment. The amendments seek to do two things. Amendment 4 seeks simply to limit what the money from the programme can be spent on, so that it could be spent only on events commemorating the holocaust and other events in Europe, particularly those relating to the impact of totalitarian regimes, dictatorships and autocracies on their citizens. Amendment 3 seeks to ensure that any money given out by the programme would not interfere with a European
	election or any subsequent referendum. I hope that, once the Opposition stop playing their silly games, we will have the referendum that this country deserves. I know that many Labour Members desire that referendum and will do all they can to persuade the leadership of their party to hold one.
	On amendment 4, I understand the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) to make his point as forcefully as possible, but I repeat what I said on Second Reading, which was that it will always be possible to find organisations with which one disagrees receiving money from a grant-giving programme. My hon. Friend has made it clear that there are certain organisations with which he disagrees, along with others with which he agrees. He was humble enough not to propose a Heaton-Harris Europe for Citizens fund, however. He simply told us about the organisations with which he disagreed.
	The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead talked about grants for swivel-eyed Eurocrats. I challenge him to tell us whether he puts the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, Community Service Volunteers or the National Council for Voluntary Organisations into that category. The ACEVO has stated:
	“The Europe for Citizens Programme allows British civil society organisations…to build capacity for the sector in the UK”
	and
	“provides opportunities to promote the agenda for social enterprise and social investment”
	which this Government have pioneered. It also points out that the UK is now seen as a leader around the world in that regard.
	Community Service Volunteers talks about securing funding in partnership with other organisations across Europe, including its Danish partner, FIC, and Croatian organisations. It is applying for a grant to commence on 1 April. The NCVO says that the Europe for Citizens programme exists to support citizens and community organisations in learning from each other across Europe and enables UK organisations to benefit from the best expertise across Europe and to develop their own links to work across borders.

Peter Bone: If the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) is not approved today, will the public not think that Members have voted, on Holocaust memorial day, against providing extra money for the remembrance of the holocaust? Would that not be shocking?

Edward Vaizey: I would not use the word “shocking” to describe an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry. I shall be visiting his constituency next Monday, and I look forward to supporting his important work at the Royal and Derngate theatre. What would be disappointing, however, is that the amendment would effectively vote down the regulation. We cannot amend the regulation, so if we cannot agree to it, it would be voted down and we would have to renegotiate it.
	I do not want to make points about the holocaust that might be seen as party political. Nor do I seek to undermine my hon. Friend’s amendment, because he has tabled it in good faith. He has pointed out, however, that today is Holocaust memorial day, and he will be
	aware that the Europe for Citizens programme has funded our national Holocaust Centre and museum. They have written to us to say that the funding enabled them to develop the History Speaks programme, which has provided the world’s first online resource for young people centred on the testimony of holocaust survivors. I have made the point that we negotiated an increase in this budget for holocaust commemorations and commemorations of the impact of totalitarian regimes. I also made the point on Second Reading that we have reduced the overall budget for the programme. We reduced by 7% not only the whole European budget, but the budget for this programme. More money will be spent on commemorations of the holocaust and other such events within a reduced budget. It amounts to about £1 million to £1.5 million from this Government.

John Cryer: On a point of information, I am the Member for Leyton and Wanstead. I used to be the Member for Hornchurch until I was ejected by an ungrateful electorate—I do not really mean that. However, the point I want to make is that a number of organisations that get money from this programme are specifically integrationist organisations that want to see a closer and more centralised European Union. Presumably, if this scheme were to be even-handed, as the chairman of Labour for a Referendum, I could apply for a grant for that organisation.

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. As I understand it, article 6, which covers access to the programme, says:
	“The programme shall be open to all stakeholders promoting European citizenship and integration, in particular local and regional authorities and organisations, twinning committees, European public policy research organisations (think-tanks), civil society organisations (including survivors' associations), and cultural, youth, educational and research organisations.”
	It does not exclude the organisation mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He could argue that he was promoting European citizenship and integration by promoting the reform of the European Union. The article does not talk about signing up to the European Union.
	The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked me to monitor the programmes and the grants that are made. Those grants are made by different organisations; all are free to apply. There is no ban on people applying to this fund. They can apply to the European Commission. I will not hold their hand. The fund is there. She can advertise it. I can advertise it on my website. Parliament and the Commission can advertise it. North Tyneside council applied and got money for the Friendship games in 2012. Thetford Twinning Association applied and got funding for Governance in the 21st Century: Sharing International Perspectives. The London borough of Enfield applied and got funding for the European twin town senior citizen network, which was led by Enfield’s over-50 forum. It brought together older people from Enfield, Courbevoie, Halandri in Greece and Gladbeck in Germany. Wigan council got funding for 2020 Together.
	I have made it absolutely clear that the amendments would end up defeating the regulation. They would delay funding for important commemoration projects and projects that commemorate the horrific impact of totalitarian regimes in Europe. My hon. Friends may think that there are some individual organisations that
	should not receive funding, but there are many other organisations, particularly twinning organisations, that have received funding and that we should support. The Government secured a significant reduction in the budget for this programme, as we did with the overall budget. The amount is about £1 million to £1.5 million a year. We should support the measure, and we certainly should not veto it.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I wish to press my amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 37, Noes 243.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 2
	Extent, commencement and short title
	Amendment proposed: 3, page1,line16,leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	‘(2) Except as provided for under subsection (2A), the provisions of this Act come into force on the day on which it is passed.
	(2A) Section 1 comes into force in relation to the draft decision to adopt the Council Regulation establishing for the period 2014-2020 the programme ‘Europe for Citizens’ (document number 12557/13) on whatever day the Secretary of State appoints by order made by statutory instrument.
	(2B) The Secretary of State may only make an order under subsection (2A) if—
	(a) he has laid a statement before both Houses of Parliament stating that no expenditure can take place under ‘Europe for Citizens’ that could influence any European Parliamentary election or referendum in the year prior to such an election or referendum, and
	(b) a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.’.—(Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 36, Noes 240.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	Third Reading

Edward Vaizey: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We have had a lively debate, both on Second Reading and in Committee. Interestingly, the other place, which often lauds itself as the scrutinising and revising Chamber,
	spent a grand total of 37 minutes on the Bill, whereas we in this House have now debated it for more than four hours, which goes to show that there is life in this place yet.
	As I pointed out on Second Reading, the reason we are able to debate the Bill is the far-sighted reform introduced by the coalition Government in the European Union Act 2011, which ensures that this House has a vote on any treaty passed by the European Union and any measure passed by the European Commission that is not part of an existing treaty. That is because Government Members believe in scrutinising European legislation, in giving elected representatives of the United Kingdom Parliament a say and, through that process and direct democracy, in giving the people of Britain a say in the future shape of Europe.
	I afraid that this debate takes place in the shadow of the Opposition’s shameful behaviour in blocking in the other place an important measure to bring in a referendum on our membership of the European Union. I hope that all Opposition Members will take this opportunity on Third Reading to disavow that.

Graham Stringer: The Minister makes a very weak point. Why do the Government not arrange, even with Lib Dem opposition, to give the House a vote, in Government time, on whether there should be a referendum so that the matter can be resolved once and for all and their lordships would not be allowed to veto it?

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Gentleman calls my point weak but then asks me to arrange a vote that this House has already had. The House voted for that Bill, and passed it almost unanimously. If he wants to trade insults about weak points, I think that he should look to his own first.
	On the Europe for Citizens programme, which has been the cause of most concern to my hon. Friends, I reiterate the points that I have made again and again. I recognise that I will not necessarily convert those who are implacably opposed to the programme full stop, but I ask them to note that we have succeeded in reducing its size by about 7%, that our contribution is one among 27 others over a period of seven years and that this particular part of it amounts to between £1 million to £1.5 million a year. I also ask them to note that we have increased the proportion of funding for commemorating the holocaust and the impact of totalitarian regimes from 4% to 20%, and that in relation to the 60% of the money about which they are concerned, because it appears in some instances to have gone to organisations that they do not support, the vast majority of it goes to organisations that are perfectly innocuous and simply seek to extend the hand of European friendship across borders on our continent.

John Redwood: As the Minister wants the European Union to have extra powers and money in this area, against the advice of some Government Members, on which areas does he want it to spend less and to give back powers?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have to watch that we do not go beyond the scope of the Bill, and I think that the Minister is being tempted down a track that he does not want to go down on Third Reading.

Edward Vaizey: I hear what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not want you to hear what I say, but to accept what I say. There is a difference.

Edward Vaizey: When I say that I hear what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker, I mean that I accept what you say. That is my interpretation: if we hear Mr Deputy Speaker speak on a subject, we accept it without question. For the avoidance of doubt, if we encounter each other and I say that I hear what you say, I accept what you say.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not think that we need to progress this: we understand each other. You want to get on with the Third Reading, and I want to hear you. Come on, Minister Vaizey.

Edward Vaizey: I hear what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: Then speak!

Edward Vaizey: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) reminds me of another point, which is that even if the House voted down the regulation —which seems unlikely, given the results of the Divisions—the money would not come back to the UK, but would simply be spent by the European Commission in another way, because it is part of the overall budget.
	On my personal preference about what Europe should spend less on, first, Mr Deputy Speaker has made it clear that I should not respond and, secondly, even if I were tempted to do so, I would have to defer to the Prime Minister, who is in the course of evaluating our negotiating position to reduce some of the European Union’s competences. However, as a matter of principle, this Government seek to reduce interference by the European Union.
	Another important point is that one should be careful about where one deploys one’s opportunities to veto or block European Union legislation. Many countries across the European Union, particularly in eastern Europe, support the programme because, as new EU members who were freed from the Soviet yoke well within living memory, they see a virtue in educating their populations about the fact that they are citizens of a free and democratic Europe, as well as of their own country.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the Minister explain what gain Her Majesty’s Government have received from giving in to this?

Edward Vaizey: It is important to work with one’s colleagues in the European Union. In the months and years to come, we will ask a great deal of them—we will put forward forceful arguments about how Europe must change—and, at the negotiating tables in Brussels, I do not want to come across colleagues from other countries who say, “Why should we listen to you, because you simply say no to everything in Europe? Anything that comes across your desk is wrong. You do not believe in the European Union, so why should we listen to you about reform?” We want the chance to have a serious debate about reforming the European Union.

Anne Main: Will the Minister give way?

Edward Vaizey: I feel that I may have sparked another area of debate and discussion. I give way to my hon. Friend.

Anne Main: I am not trying to be unhelpful, but is the Minister saying that this is a bone that we are giving to the EU in the hope that we might get a bigger bone back in the future?

Edward Vaizey: I do not know what my hon. Friend’s definition of unhelpful is. I am sure that voting for an amendment that the Government oppose is not unhelpful. I am simply saying that this is a very small programme that costs us between £1 million and £1.5 million a year, and that the vast majority of the programme supports things that we actively should support, such as commemoration of the holocaust, or other areas that, if one were to be pejorative, might be described as innocuous, such as twinning celebrations.
	The serious point is that many eastern European member states will use the programme to support their campaign to remain free and democratic nations as part of a free and democratic Europe. Given that the measure has been supported by all the other member states, I think that we in this House should support it and send those eastern European states a signal that we support the journey that they have taken towards freedom and democracy.

Helen Goodman: I do not share the Minister’s Panglossian view that our debates today and a fortnight ago have provided effective scrutiny. As he pointed out, it is impossible to change the regulation. When this House deals with other legislation, we can amend it. It would be better if we strengthened the scrutiny of proposals that come from Europe when they can still be changed and when there can still be negotiation. As I am sure the Minister knows, the European Scrutiny Committee has produced a report with a number of suggestions, some quite sensible and some not so sensible, on how we could improve our scrutiny processes. It would be far better if we scrutinised European legislation at a much earlier stage than has been the case today and two weeks ago.
	We have reached a consensus about the importance of archiving European documents and putting aside resources to remember the holocaust and other serious human rights abuses that have occurred in Europe, particularly in the past century. Her Majesty’s Opposition believe that it is vital to address the apathy and loss of interest in political processes, particularly among young people. We belong to the European Union, even though many Conservative Members wish that we did not. As long as we belong to it, it is important that people use their rights. This is an opportunity to allow people, especially young people, to learn more about the European Union, which might allow them to exercise their rights.

Graham Stringer: My hon. Friend puts her finger on an important point in talking about many young people’s disillusionment with and alienation from the political
	process. Would it not be more important to engage young people if they could vote for the people who make their laws in the European Commission and throw the rascals out? At the moment, those people are appointed in a very undemocratic way.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend tempts me to discuss reform of the European institutions. There is a case for reforming them. Perhaps if more young people had a better understanding of how they work, more of them would take the view that he set out. However, we are in the European Union and we have European elections coming up. It is important that people understand the significance of those elections.
	I thought that it was a little churlish of the Minister not to describe the application process more clearly, not just for my benefit, but for the benefit of those who are watching the debate. None the less, that is a small point and I shall not divide the House on Third Reading.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is a dreadful Bill of which Her Majesty’s Government should be deeply ashamed. They should hang their head in shame at having done it. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, or the Department of entertainments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) called it, has agreed to something that directly contradicts what the Prime Minister said a year ago. We have a Prime Minister, a leader of Her Majesty’s Government, who says one thing and a Department for Culture, Media and Sport that brings forward a Bill to do exactly the reverse. The Prime Minister said he was against ever closer union; the money that we are discussing will be spent on promoting ever closer union.
	The Commons, in its wisdom, is to contradict the Prime Minister. Does that show the proper control that the Government should have of their legislative programme, if Bills are introduced that make the Prime Minister’s words look like wormwood? Is that how the Government wish to treat the British people? Can we have trust in our politicians in this nation if the Prime Minister says one thing and his Ministers bring forth Bills saying another? Are we to feel that there is any movement in the Government’s policy towards reducing ever closer union when their Bills say the reverse and when the words, which are cheap, say one thing but the Acts of Parliament say another—and say that which the British people are opposed to? We have a review of competences to see whether there is the right balance, yet we increase the competences without having any review at all.
	We have, by unanimity, agreed to spend money on promoting the ideal of the European Union, and we have had no apology for it and no defence of it other than the Minister saying that he does not much like it but he does not think it is a grand scheme and it might cheer up his mates in eastern Europe.

Anne Main: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Minister has just admitted that the Bill is a message to the European Union and its citizens, not a message to the British public about our intentions?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I give way to my hon. Friend the Minister.

Edward Vaizey: I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) represented my views entirely as I would have them represented. After all, I read out quotations supporting the programme from four British organisations that have as much right as anyone else to say that they represent the views of the British people, including the national Holocaust Centre.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: They are four British institutions that have had to take the European shilling and sign up to promoting closer European integration to get access to money—institutions that are meant to be under British charity law and politically independent, except when it comes to Europe, when they get handouts to be biased in what they say.

Conor Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Minister is right that the sums are modest and the grants may well go to organisations of merit that the UK would fund anyway without the need to be given our own money back, the programme will undermine us powerfully as we go to our constituencies to try to persuade our electorate that we are sincere about getting powers back to Britain and putting them to the public in a referendum?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill is cretaceous—

Peter Bottomley: Cretaceous?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Yes, as in “from Crete”, and we know the reputation—

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that we occasionally allow words from other languages in the Chamber, but I am not sure whether that one should be allowed.

Lindsay Hoyle: I must admit, I did not catch the word that was said, so we will proceed.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) will find the word in the “Oxford English Dictionary” if he has a chance to look at it later.
	The point is that the programme will absolutely destroy trust and we know that trust in politics is at a low. A recent survey showed that trust in the EU was at an all-time low since the survey was started in 2001. If politicians go around legislating in direct contradiction of what they have said, the British public will take them for untrustworthy.

Graham Stringer: The hon. Gentleman is almost invariably precise on this subject, and I usually agree with him, but he said that the money would be used to promote the ideal of the European Union. In fact, it will be used to promote myths about it, one of which is that the EU, not NATO, has delivered peace in Europe over the past 60 or 70 years.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I apologise for understating my opposition to this Bill. That is not an error I shall repeat.
	The Bill is a desperate disappointment. When I was first elected, I was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that Governments would promise things. They would give guarantees, undertakings and reassurances about how Eurosceptic they were, and I, as a young and naive new Member, would believe them and put trust in the leadership of the party to speak as it did, just as my hon. Friend found when he first came here. He said that as time went by I would find that those promises turned out to be as ashes and dust, and that although the Government were willing to say, to play, and to sing the Eurosceptic tune, they would actually be dancing the pro-European dance. In this Bill, that dance has been taken to a further degree. It would win “Strictly Come Dancing” for its skill in dancing to the pro-European tune. It is a great betrayal of trust.
	This is not about the amount of money involved, which is small; it is the principle of proposing and advancing the citizenship of Europe—a citizenship that is odious to most subjects of Her Majesty. It is something we never asked for, never wanted, and that most of us would reject, and we object to our taxes being taken to pay for it.
	“Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”
	We know Her Majesty’s Government’s true pro-European colours from this particular fruit.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am not sure how I can follow that really.

Peter Bottomley: Just agree with it.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Yes, I suppose I should agree in general principle with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). This has been a legitimate exercise in parliamentary scrutiny of the spending, but I am disappointed with how we got to this point. I have been surprised by some of the points raised in the debate. On Second Reading, when the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) got the number of countries in the European Union badly wrong, she drew a few concerns that perhaps she did not know what she was talking about. Fortunately for us, she proved that exactly today in her speech, so that is all good.
	The Minister said that we had a number of experts in Athens; I think the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee is there today. From my list of 1,000 organisations that received money from this budget in 2007, he will doubtless be visiting the Masters and Mates Union of Greek Merchant Marine organisation, which managed to receive €47,316. The problem is not necessarily with the organisations that bid for money, and what the Minister did not say when he responded to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland is that things do not have to be written in the regulations for each budget line. Pages 1, 2 and 3 of the European Union’s budget each year state at the front what is expected of organisations that receive money from the European Union. It will not surprise the Minister to know that those organisations are required to promote ever-closer Union, fly things such as the European flag, and there are other requirements.
	It is disappointing that so many organisations feel they have to bid for European money with so many strings attached.
	In a way, this is a bit like the debate on tax credits that we entered when we took office in 2010. So many people had tax credits—someone with up to about £60,000 of household earnings could claim them. However, when we gradually took something away from people because we could not afford it, people were cross because the Government had spread their largesse around. That is what the European Union is doing. It is throwing its largesse around; it is throwing around our cash with its name all over it, and we had an opportunity to change that.
	I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset says about the Bill painting a picture. We have heard two great speeches—one from the Prime Minister last February, and one from the Chancellor only a couple of weeks ago—about what a new UK relationship with Europe should be, but the vote points us in completely the opposite direction and leaves me wondering whether we really mean what we say. I would like to think we do, but—heaven forbid—the politics behind today’s decision defeat me.
	I am disappointed. We are paying for propaganda and politics, which we just do not do in this country. It is great shame that we have missed this opportunity to straighten those things out.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 246, Noes 28.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Business without Debate

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

AVIATION AND THE EU EMISSION TRADING SYSTEM

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15051/13 and Addendum, a Draft Directive amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in view of the implementation by 2020 of an international agreement applying a single global market-based measure to international aviation emissions; welcomes the acknowledgement by the European Commission that the scope of the Aviation EU Emissions Trading System should be adjusted in light of progress made towards agreement on a global market-based measure for aviation emissions at the General Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, in October 2013; and calls on the Government to seek revision of the System in a manner which will achieve a high level of compliance and reduce the risk of legal, political and commercial retaliatory actions from third countries, with a view to facilitating an agreement at the next ICAO General Assembly in 2016 on a global market-based measure for aviation emissions.—(Gregory Barker.)
	Question agreed to.

Backbench Business

Dangerous Driving

Chris Skidmore: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the law on dangerous driving.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allotting the time for this debate. Members in all parts of the House feel strongly on this issue and I recognise that I am not the only Member to have raised concerns regarding the law on dangerous driving. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) launched a “Stop Dangerous Drivers” campaign and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) gathered a significant petition relating to a case in his constituency. Many other Members are on the record as being committed to changing the law on dangerous driving. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) recently introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, supported by 12 Members from all political parties, calling for the Government to consider the sentencing guidelines as they relate to penalties for dangerous driving offences that lead to death or serious injury.

Rehman Chishti: I applaud my hon. Friend for his work on this matter. He talks about sentencing for dangerous driving. Does he agree that we also need to consider offences linked to dangerous driving? For example, the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years, but for causing death while disqualified it is two years. Does he agree that the latter sentence should be 14 years, in line with that for dangerous driving?

Chris Skidmore: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I will address that issue later in my speech. I wanted to ensure that we had a general debate on the law on dangerous driving so that Members of all political parties could have their say on individual cases in their constituencies, giving them an opportunity to raise matters important to them and to the House.

Mark Spencer: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Will he find time in his opening remarks to talk not just on sentencing, but on when the Crown Prosecution Service chooses to prosecute? In my constituency, there was a case where somebody was convicted of another offence and the police decided not to pursue a conviction for dangerous driving because they were already in prison.

Chris Skidmore: I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. I will focus on the law on death by dangerous driving, but other Members have raised the issue of whether the Crown Prosecution Service’s definition of careless driving should be classified as dangerous driving. I understand from alarming statistics that too many drivers have been prosecuted for careless driving when dangerous driving was at play. As a result, their sentences were far more lenient than they would have been if they had been prosecuted under dangerous driving.

Andrew Bridgen: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. In my time as an MP, one of the most difficult things I have had to do is to meet the parents of young people killed by dangerous driving with regard to the sentences that have been handed down. There was a case in my constituency, three years ago to the day, where two young girls were killed. The driver who caused the accident received a sentence of 36 weeks, despite the fact that he ran away from the scene of the crime and left the young ladies to die. My constituents cannot understand how such sentences can be considered proportionate, when they suffer a lifetime of regret and misery.

Chris Skidmore: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case from his constituency. I entirely agree that it is shocking and inconceivable that we have so many cases in many constituencies where the penalty does not reflect the severity of the incident—violent death as a result of dangerous driving.
	I will not take any more interventions at the moment. I want to carry on with my speech and raise a case in my constituency. Today is the first anniversary of that case.
	The Government are committed to reviewing the law surrounding offences of dangerous driving, and I hope the debate is able to influence their position in the next few months. Already, as part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving has been established, with a penalty of five years. It came into force on 3 December 2012 and received cross-party support. I hope that the tone of this debate reflects the cross-party support for reviewing and changing the law on dangerous driving.
	The debate is topical not just because there are so many Members who want to raise individual constituency cases, but because of the current situation. On 28 August 2013, the Government announced that the Sentencing Council would review sentencing guidelines for the recently introduced offences of causing death by careless driving; causing serious injury by dangerous driving; and causing death by dangerous driving. It was with that review in mind that I wanted to hold the debate, so that the will of the House, and the views of Members from all parts of the House, could be heard and made known to the Sentencing Council. I hope that the Minister will take note of the various issues raised, and that they will inform the Government’s own decisions, once the Sentencing Council has conducted its review, so that they are aware of the strength of feeling about the fact that the laws on dangerous driving need to be changed.
	I know that many Members are committed to campaigning for a change in the law as a result of tragic constituency cases of deaths caused by dangerous driving, and they will have met families of victims of dangerous drivers who have had their loved ones cruelly torn from them, often at a young age, only to find that the law is not on their side. The pain and suffering of losing a family member to such a violent death at the irresponsible hands of a dangerous driver are unthinkable, but for the perpetrator of so great a crime then to be given a custodial sentence of a few months or years, or even just a fine and a suspended sentence, is an injustice that few could agree is acceptable. It is in their memory that we hold this debate.
	Today is the first anniversary of one of the most tragic cases of death by dangerous driving—a case that made national headlines and led to a campaign involving thousands of people in the Bristol region demanding that the law on dangerous driving be changed. On the afternoon of Sunday 27 January 2013, Ross and Clare Simons were riding their recently purchased tandem bike along Lower Hanham road in my constituency. The couple, 34 and 30, were in the prime of their lives and had been married just 18 months. Only the previous day, they had celebrated the news that they were about to begin IVF treatment to start a family. With everything to live for, they had their entire future together to look forward to.
	Elsewhere in Hanham, Nicholas Lovell, 38, was driving his partner’s Citroen Picasso at speed when he was spotted by police, whose sirens quickly indicated to him to pull over. It was not the first time Lovell had been confronted by the law. Having amassed 69 previous convictions, he was well versed at showing blatant disregard for the rules of the road. Taking part in road races throughout his youth and 20s, he had been in and out of the revolving doors of the courts. Repeatedly, he had shown no interest in either his own safety or anyone else’s. In December 1998, high on drugs, he drove at 70 mph on the wrong side of the road as he fled police in Bradley Stoke, speeding all the way to Downend, before crashing head on into another car. During the ensuing court case, he predicted:
	“If I don’t deal with this problem now, I am either going to kill myself or kill someone else.”
	It was perhaps the only real truth he had ever uttered. Fourteen years later, on the afternoon of 27 January 2013, he did not know that his chilling prophecy was about to become a reality.
	What Lovell did know, speeding in his partner’s Citroen Picasso through Hanham, the police now on his tail, sirens blazing, was that he should never have been in that car in the first place—he was serving a driving ban, having been disqualified from driving. It was not ignorance of the law that had driven him to take the wheel of a car that afternoon; he had simply chosen to ignore it. Neither was it the first time he had been banned from driving. He had committed 11 offences of driving while disqualified and been convicted for dangerous driving four times. Not that he seemed to care: two weeks earlier, he had met an acquaintance, John Fleming—nicknamed “Johnny Fireball”—outside the Jolly Sailor pub on Hanham high street, where he challenged him to a race. “He said, ‘Come on, Jonny Fireball. Let’s have a race. I’ve got a fast car put down’”, Fleming later recalled, adding that Lovell also told him, “I don’t care if I do 90 mph and hit someone.”
	At 3.50 pm exactly a year ago today, as Lovell sped into Lower Hanham road, with the police in pursuit, he was driving too fast to control his car. Clipping a parked car, his vehicle launched itself across the other side of the road. Call it what you like—the wrong place, the wrong time, that split second moment that can make the difference between life and death—the uninsured car hit a newly purchased tandem bike being ridden by Ross and Clare Simons. They did not stand a chance, and their deaths were almost immediate. Lovell, on the other hand, was still very much alive—alive enough to run away on foot from the scene of the accident, leaving his partner to claim that she had been driving the car at the time, giving the police a false name.
	The deaths of Ross and Clare Simons quickly made the national headlines, and their loss shook the entire local community I represent. I never met them, but no one had a bad word to say about this couple, who lived their short lives to the full, touching so many people along the way. A week later, I attended the vigil at the site of their deaths on Lower Hanham road, where easily over 500 people stood silent as we marked the minute when they had been struck. I made a pledge then to Ross’s father, Edwin, that I would do everything in my power, as the local MP, to help them and to ensure that they achieved justice for their tragic loss.
	Only when Lovell was finally tracked down and charged did the enormity of his crime become known. As I have already stated, he had 69 previous convictions, including for four offences of dangerous driving, for which he was disqualified from driving completely back in 1999, only to be given a further 11 convictions for driving while disqualified.

Rehman Chishti: My hon. Friend paints a shocking picture of a horrific offence by an individual who had 11 convictions for driving while disqualified. The maximum sentence for that is six months, whether it is someone’s first, 15th or 11th offence. Do we not need to ensure a stiffer sentence for repeat offenders, as I proposed in a private Member’s Bill?

Chris Skidmore: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it is the basis of my speech, and I will talk later about what needs to happen to toughen up the law and make driving while disqualified at least an aggravating factor, if not something more, in cases of death by dangerous driving. In Canada, for instance, while causing death by dangerous driving can incur a penalty of 10 years, causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified can incur a life sentence. We should be going down that route of much tougher penalties for these people, who should not be let out of jail in the first place so as to be able to commit these crimes.
	Back in 1999, Lovell was banned from driving essentially for life. The horror of previous crimes included fleeing from the police in 1998 after being spotted at the wheel of a stolen car and, as I have said, driving at speeds of 70mph. In August 2000, he again fled from the police and drove on a public footpath and subway before crashing into a tree, and eight years later, he was spotted by police who wanted to question him about two robberies, but reversed at speed into their vehicle, causing damage, before mounting a pavement to undertake vehicles waiting at traffic lights, forcing two pedestrians to jump out of the way in order to avoid being hit. He was a ticking time bomb. Given the number of his offences, it was inevitable, as he prophesised himself, that he would one day cause death by dangerous driving.
	At first, when these details were revealed in court, it seemed inconceivable that someone with so many convictions and disqualifications could have been allowed to kill in this way. How had he managed to flout the law so many times? How had the justice system, for more than a decade and a half, allowed this man persistently to slip through the net and to treat the police, the courts and the laws of this land with contempt? Perhaps there will never be an answer, but that we have even to ask these questions highlights the need for the law to be changed.
	Lovell pleaded guilty at the trial, and received the maximum possible sentence for causing death by dangerous driving of 14 years—in fact, he was the first person to be given this sentence since its introduction in 2004—but as a result of his guilty plea, it was reduced by a third to 10 years and six months. Both sentences were then ordered by the judge to run concurrently. The result is that, pending good behaviour, Lovell could be out of prison after six years. Ross’ father, Edwin, summed up the mood at the end of the trial, when he said:
	“he’s going to serve three years for each of our children’s lives.”

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that a motor vehicle in the wrong hands is a lethal weapon and that the sentencing powers for dangerous driving should reflect that?

Chris Skidmore: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It seems bizarre. In 2004, the previous Government legislated, absolutely correctly, to increase the penalty for dangerous driving. A car is a lethal weapon, but the consequences, if someone causes death while driving, are not on a level playing field with deaths caused in other circumstances, and that is what we are fighting for in this debate.

Gareth Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the poignant, powerful speech that he is making. Does he agree that the charging guidelines may need to be reconsidered? I do not understand why, in many cases, the charge is not one of manslaughter rather than causing death by dangerous driving, given that the imposition of a life sentence is an option for any court that convicts an offender of manslaughter.

Chris Skidmore: I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend has placed that on the record. A manslaughter charge could and should be considered as a way of toughening the law on dangerous driving and increasing sentences. I intend to look into the issue of disqualification. I am not a lawyer, but I think that when judges or barristers have to decide whether intent or lack of intent can be proved, manslaughter or murder should be considered. When it comes to cases in which there was a lack of intent but it is known that someone was driving dangerously in the first place, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) made an excellent point. The advantage of a manslaughter charge is that it is not necessary to prove a specific intent; what happened may have been the result of a reckless act. As my hon. Friend rightly said, sentencing powers are at large. Is not the issue the way in which we charge offenders? Are we not in danger of limiting the options of the courts by opting for charges such as causing death, which, although convenient and appropriate, may not fully reflect the gravity of the acts committed?

Chris Skidmore: I defer to my hon. Friend’s knowledge, given that he is a lawyer who, I am sure, has encountered plenty of cases of dangerous driving, and death by dangerous driving, in his time. All I know is that we and the Sentencing Council need to give the courts more tools to deal with these cases. The judge who presided over Lovell’s trial said that he wished that he could have
	imposed a tougher sentence. As it was, he could impose a sentence of no more than 10 years and six months, but if the necessary power had been vested in him by Parliament, he would have imposed that tougher sentence. It is our responsibility as legislators to make our voice heard to the Minister and the Sentencing Council in order to bring about a change in the law.
	I am sure that, if we put ourselves in the shoes of the families involved, each one of us would be not only heartbroken by the loss of a relative, but aggrieved by the nature of the sentences handed down by the courts. The fact that the judge in the Lovell case wanted to impose a heavier sentence but was unable to do so simply rubs salt in the wounds.
	A full year has passed since the deaths of Ross and Clare Simons, but the devastation remains. As Kelly Woodruff, Ross’s sister, explained:
	“What the perpetrators don’t realise is the devastation they cause—people’s lives, like ours, are scarred forever. We will never live the way we should be living, all because of that man, my future has been stolen.”
	During this period of unspeakable grief, however, Kelly has also commented:
	“Over this year we’ve realised we are not alone. So many people have contacted us who have gone through the same thing all over the country.
	The sentences some people have received for dangerous driving are awful—12 months for killing someone.”
	Indeed, recent figures relating to convictions for death by dangerous driving offences speak for themselves. In 2011, 153 of the 408 people convicted of causing death or bodily harm while driving dangerously, or under the influence of drink or drugs, avoided jail altogether. Five were given fines, and 63 were given suspended prison sentences.

Sarah Wollaston: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Ross and Clare Simons and sending condolences to their family. It appears that the perpetrator of that offence did not care at all that he was causing a risk to others through his actions. If we are to deter such people in future, should it not be possible to impose longer custodial sentences before people reach the point of killing someone? That would be the real deterrent, given that simply caring about other people does not cross their radar.

Chris Skidmore: My hon. Friend is right. Lovell showed no remorse at his trial, just as he had showed no remorse following the offences that had led to his previous 69 convictions and his being banned for life from driving.
	A deterrent is a limited option. It may be unlikely that people who think in that way will ever be deterred from getting into a car, driving at speed, and then killing someone. What we need is the opportunity to give the police and the courts the power to ensure that such people are off the road in the first place, and cannot commit crimes. The tragedy for Ross and Clare Simons was that Nicholas Lovell should never have been in that car to start with. He was not allowed to be in a car, but that did not prevent him from getting into one. Rather than being on the road, he should have been in jail serving time for the previous crimes that he had committed so relentlessly. We need to deal with that problem if we are to prevent further tragedies.
	Of the 255 people who went to prison in 2011, 21 were given less than six months in jail, 104 were jailed for under two years, and just 37—one in seven of all those who were convicted of death by dangerous driving—were given prison sentences of more than five years. It is clear that the severity of the sentencing for those who cause death by dangerous driving is a national issue that needs to be addressed.

Nick Herbert: It is not just a question of sentencing; there is also the issue of what happens when someone who has caused serious injury, or death, to another person, continues to drive until his case is heard. If a car is indeed a lethal weapon, as others have suggested, why do courts not exercise their discretion to set bail conditions that make it impossible for people to drive when a test has established that their blood contained alcohol or drugs? That issue has been raised by other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who, like me, has a constituency interest. Jamie Still, the 16-year-old son of one of my constituents, was tragically killed on New Year’s Eve. The perpetrator drove for months until, finally, there was a conviction. Is that not wrong as well?

Chris Skidmore: I cannot imagine how distressing it must be for the families of those who have been killed by dangerous drivers to know—while awaiting what is bound to be a highly stressful and emotional trial—that someone who, although he has not yet been convicted, has committed a crime which—and the consequences of which—has been clearly witnessed, is behind a wheel yet again. Those families must be distraught. I urge the Minister and the Government to consider the point raised by my right hon. Friend, which may, indeed, be within the remit of the Sentencing Council.
	The tragedy of Ross and Clare Simons has been repeated across the country. Sentences are being handed down that do not fit the crime. I believe that the sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving, and, indeed, the law, need to be changed to reflect the added culpability of a driver who has already been disqualified and should never have been in a car in the first place, and who then causes death by dangerous driving. As I said earlier, in Canada the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving is a prison sentence of 10 years, and someone who was already disqualified from driving at the time is given a life sentence. At the very least, the fact of killing someone while driving dangerously and while disqualified should constitute an additional aggravating factor, and should result in a longer sentence.
	Over the past year, the families of Ross and Clare Simons have been determined to call for exactly that. Their campaign, Justice 4 Ross and Clare, has issued a petition calling on the Government
	“to review and change sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving so that drivers who have previous convictions for dangerous driving, including driving under the influence of drink and drugs, or have been disqualified from driving, and continue to commit dangerous driving offences, causing death or injury as a result, be given far longer and tougher sentences than currently exist.”
	The petition has attracted more than 13,000 signatures so far, and is still going strong.
	On 9 October 2013, I raised the campaign, and the need to strengthen the law applying to offences of death by dangerous driving, with the Prime Minister in the House. The Prime Minister replied:
	“This is the most appalling crime: someone with 10 previous convictions, as my hon. Friend says, and who was disqualified at the time driving dangerously and killing two people, snuffing out their lives. The sentence was 10 years. As I understand it, the maximum sentence available for a crime like this is 14 years. The Government have introduced a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, so we are looking at this whole area. I can also tell him that the Justice Secretary has asked the Sentencing Council to review the sentencing guidelines for serious driving offences, and we should look at this specific case in the light of that.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 156.]
	In the light of the Prime Minister’s comments, I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to ensure that the Sentencing Council is made fully aware of the specifics of the case that I have raised, with a view to considering increasing the sentences for persistent offenders who cause death or injury by dangerous driving. Will the Minister also update the House on when the review will finally produce its report?
	Will the Minister also look closely at introducing a change in the law to create a new offence of death or injury being caused by dangerous disqualified drivers, with a far tougher penalty than those that are currently imposed under the dangerous driving laws? Such a change would, I hope, act as a deterrent, even though deterrents are not always enough. I hope that it would also ensure that the likes of Nicholas Lovell could be kept behind bars for as long as possible. I know it is the hope of the family of Ross and Clare that, if anything is to come out of their tragic deaths, it should be a positive step that will ensure that we avoid similar tragedies in the future.

Ian Austin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing this important debate. I want to use this opportunity to ask the Minister to look into what many people feel are the derisory sentences received by those who kill or injure cyclists. I have raised examples of such cases with Ministers before, and we will have to continue to do so until the police investigate them properly and the Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes them properly.
	For example, British Cycling employee Rob Jefferies was killed when hit from behind on an open, straight road in daylight by someone who had already been caught speeding. Unbelievably, the driver got just an 18-month ban. He had to resit his driving test, do 200 hours’ community service and pay a small fine. That was in line with the guidelines, so there was no hope of an appeal. Rob’s brother, Will Jefferies, said that
	“the present state of the law meant that Rob’s killer could never receive a sentence proportionate to the crime.”
	The lorry driver who killed another cyclist, Eilidh Jake Cairns, admitted in court that his eyesight was not good enough for him to have been driving, but he was fined just £200. He was free to drive again immediately, and 18 months later knocked down and killed Nora Guttmann, an elderly pensioner. His eyesight was still poor and he was not wearing his prescribed glasses. Surely that is dangerous driving.

Bob Stewart: I am spurred to intervene on the hon. Gentleman because one of the things that upsets me about these sentences is that when
	those people have served their time, they presumably consider themselves to have been released from their responsibility for having taken a life. The law should reflect the fact that taking a life is a heinous crime, and it should carry a heavier sentence.

Ian Austin: The hon. Gentleman is completely right, and I am sure that that sentiment will be echoed by many Members on both sides of the House tonight.
	If the driver who killed Eilidh had been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, he would have been issued a driving ban and would not have been on the road and able to kill Nora Guttmann just a few months later. In that case, the justice system failed both those women. When police officer Cath Ward was knocked off her bike and killed, the driver was convicted of careless driving and received a short driving ban. Cath’s friend Ruth Eyles wrote to me to say:
	“What shocks me is that the driver who killed Rob Jefferies will be able to drive again in 18 months. If that young man had had a legal firearm and had accidentally shot and killed someone through carelessness, would he be given a new licence 18 months later?”

Mark Spencer: Many people who are convicted of a driving offence and sent to prison often receive a driving ban that runs concurrently with their prison sentence. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the ban should not begin until they are released, rather than taking effect when they are in prison and cannot drive anyway?

Ian Austin: I completely agree; those arrangements are nonsense because those people are unable to drive while they are in prison. The ban should obviously start only when the prison sentence has been served.

Mark Tami: In some cases, there must surely be a good argument for never allowing the person to drive again. Firearms have been mentioned; if someone misused a firearm resulting in death or injury, the chances of their getting a licence to use one again would be nil. Why is that not the case in relation to driving?

Ian Austin: There is no doubt that some people drive in an extremely reckless and dangerous way, without any regard for other road users, and of course they should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car again. Cars are dangerous things, and people must be incredibly careful to obey the law when they are behind the wheel.
	I was on the scene of—and the closest witness to—an incident in which a dangerous driver, overtaking when it was not safe to do so, swung aggressively into the path of two cyclists, putting both of them in hospital. He also failed to stop. That driver was simply sent on a course. The police completely failed to investigate the incident properly, and the CPS completely failed to take it seriously. I have known that same police force to investigate other cases in a very poor way. I was careful, when putting together my statement, to demonstrate clearly that that man’s driving met the criteria for a charge of dangerous driving, but no prosecution was brought. The guy was simply sent on a course. In fact, I believe that it was an anger management course, so it was clearly accepted that he had been driving dangerously because he was angry. He was not prosecuted, however. That was absolutely unbelievable.
	All too often, incidents in which people are seriously injured are downgraded from dangerous driving to careless driving because that makes it easier to secure a conviction. However, a conviction for careless driving usually results in the driver just having to attend a course. We need a comprehensive review of how the police investigate such incidents and of how the justice system operates when people are hurt or killed on the roads. Enforcement of traffic laws should be reviewed to improve road safety. That would benefit all road users, but particularly cyclists and pedestrians. Road traffic police numbers have decreased dramatically over the past 10 years, and we should look at reversing that trend to improve enforcement and investigation. Prosecution guidance needs updating to ensure that bad driving that causes obviously foreseeable danger should be classed as a dangerous driving offence. Long driving bans should be more widely used to penalise drivers who have caused serious danger, but not recklessly or intentionally. Where drivers have caused serious danger recklessly or intentionally, or have a history of breaching bans, long prison sentences are more appropriate.
	Underpinning all that, there needs to be better information on how the criminal justice system deals with collisions. Currently, the complete lack of information makes it difficult to prevent future accidents from happening. Ministers should look at linking the information taken by the police at the scene of a collision with the information from the criminal justice system. That would make it easier to analyse the response of the justice system to road collisions. It would also help to identify areas that need improvement.
	British Cycling, of which I am a member, has been doing extensive work on this issue, and I would urge the Minister and his colleagues in the Home Office to look at its recommendations when they are published on Monday 10 February. I would like to invite the Minister to attend the event, here in the House, at which those recommendations will be launched. I will write to him with the details. Will he also agree to convene a meeting between himself, British Cycling and Ministers from the Home Office and the Department for Transport, to discuss British Cycling’s proposals in detail?

Charles Hendry: Madam Deputy Speaker, you have given me permission to refer to your own tragic loss last October when your own mother-in-law was killed in a car crash in Aberdeenshire. All of us who know you understand the sense of grief that you experienced at the loss of Margaret. It is hard to come to terms with the fact that such a gentle elderly lady, who had given her life to caring for people, could be killed in such a brutal and savage way. It must be painful and poignant for you to be in charge of our discussions this afternoon.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for securing this debate and for the way in which he introduced it. All of us speaking in the House today will have particular constituency cases that have caused profound pain. As Members of Parliament, and not as members of the families involved, we have felt a great sense of anger and distress at the way in which things have sometimes been handled.
	On the afternoon of 30 November 2011, William Avery-Wright, a 13-year-old schoolboy at Worth Abbey school in Sussex, but who lived at Crowborough in my
	constituency, was killed when he was crossing the road between the school and its rugby pitches. William was recognised by all as a gifted and promising student. He was a talented young golfer, ranked fourth in the Sussex junior league, with the whole of his life ahead of him. The road was not in a dangerous condition; the driver was driving relatively fast but well within the 60 mph speed limit. That limit has since been reduced to 40 mph, which demonstrates the fact that this stretch of road was recognised to be dangerous.
	My comments relate less to the law on drivers with regard to dangerous driving than to the law on others, such as schools, and their responsibility to keep children safe on dangerous roads. In this case, there were failings by the Health and Safety Executive, the Crown Prosecution Service and the school itself, which should have been prosecuted. The way in which the school handled the incident was horrific and compounded the parents’ distress.
	At 5pm, as Mr Avery-Wright was on his way to East Surrey hospital, where William had been taken, the headmaster of Worth Abbey, Mr Gino Carminati, sent an e-mail to the parents of all school pupils, with the specific exception of Mr and Mrs Avery-Wright, to say that William had been killed. As a consequence, Mr Avery-Wright was receiving messages of condolence on his mobile, before he had even reached the hospital to identify his son. Although the school has offered its sympathies and condolences on a number of occasions it has never issued Mr and Mrs Avery-Wright with an apology, in writing or in person, for William’s death or for its failings. However, the parents did receive an apology letter from the headmaster for his conduct after William’s death.
	The school wanted to act as if the accident had not happened. At times, it seemed more concerned about its own reputation than the loss and grief of William’s parents. Mr and Mrs Avery-Wright understandably wanted to leave flowers at the place of the accident, and the guidance from West Sussex county council is absolutely clear that temporary floral tributes can remain in place for 12 weeks after an accident. On 5 January 2012, just over a month after the accident, the headmaster asked for the flowers to be moved, as he did not want them there at the start of the new school term.
	Above all, it is clear that the school breached its own health and safety policy. The coroners’ inquest, which took place on 8 and 9 July 2013, said:
	“A School Rule that pupils in his year group [year 8] should not cross the road without adult supervision was not enforced or adhered to.”
	The school had long known about the risks. The school bursar, Father Aidan Murray, and the headmaster, Mr Carminati, co-authored a letter to West Sussex county council in December 2007—four years before the accident —acknowledging the inherent risks to school pupils crossing the Paddockhurst road. In the letter, they said:
	“The speed and volume of traffic on this section of the road is of great concern to myself and to the Headmaster, who has responsibility for the safety of the 430 pupils of Worth School.”
	They talked about the measures outside Ardingly college. They said:
	“We feel that similar speed restrictions or a traffic calming scheme on the Paddockhurst Road outside the School and Abbey are needed before a fatality occurs.”
	The school was sufficiently concerned about the prospect of injury or death to pupils crossing Paddockhurst road that it was recorded in their risk register ranked as
	“high”. As a result, the school committed to take action to mitigate the risk, by escorting years 7 and 8 pupils across the road. However, as Mr Avery-Wright says in one of his letters:
	“The written evidence from pupils interviewed by the police confirms that this ‘Action’ was not enforced or adhered to prior to William’s death.”
	Clearly, a bridge across the road, such as the one that has now been constructed, would have been the best solution, but we know from the inquest that, in spite of these long-standing concerns, Worth school made no planning application for a bridge to be constructed in any of the 12 years preceding William’s death.
	Furthermore, the school's risk assessment identifies the hazard as “A2”, which means that urgent, early attention is required to remove risk—not just to mitigate it. We need to understand what A2 means. “A” is the level of severity. It means a risk of death, major injury, damage or loss of property or equipment, and “2” refers to the likelihood of incidents occurring. The “2” means frequent or often likely to occur.
	In January 2013, the police submitted their findings to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration. Subsequently the police were informed by the CPS that
	“there are insufficient grounds to proceed with a gross negligence manslaughter prosecution against any individual at the school.”
	Mr Avery-Wright received a document from West Sussex police, which attempts to answer a number of questions raised by him and his wife. He said that the CPS guidance to the police was
	“that these failures do not constitute a breach of Health and Safety, for a gross negligence charge of Corporate Manslaughter to proceed.”
	In April 2013, Nick May, detective superintendent at the Surrey and Sussex major crime team confirmed to the parents that the Health and Safety Executive would not be taking any action in respect of William’s death. For further enquiries Mr May advised Mr Avery-Wright to contact the Health and Safety Executive director, David Rothery. Mr Rothery, responded in December 2013, repeating that the HSE could not take this matter further and quoted the relevant legislation, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, to support his statement. He said:
	“Summarising the factors involved in the evidential test [no prosecution can go ahead unless the prosecutor finds there is sufficient evidence to provide realistic prospect of conviction] the fact that the school recognised the risk and tried to take action by contacting outside authorities, by setting up a system and letting staff and pupils, irrespective of whether that system could indeed be observed in every situation, makes it unlikely that the evidential test would be passed.”
	It seems that a school can highlight a serious risk in its risk register, propose actions to mitigate those risks, but then not implement them, and when that results in the death of a child, as far as the HSE is concerned, that does not warrant prosecution.
	Mr Avery-Wright replied to Mr Rothery’s letter and raised the following questions. He said:
	“How can the Risk Assessment be argued as being impractical, and that the school had done all that was reasonably practicable, the legal requirement, by alerting staff, pupils and other authorities?”
	He said that the school risk assessment is unambiguous in what supervision the school will provide for the road
	crossing. It does not use words such as “we will endeavour to” or “in so far as reasonably practical”' to lessen its impact.
	Furthermore, Mr Avery-Wright has provided the HSE with photographs taken in October 2013, demonstrating the quality of adult supervision provided on behalf of pupils using the school crossing today. That begs the question: if structured adult supervision for the road crossing of this quality could be provided after William’s death, why could it not have been delivered before his death in compliance with the school’s own risk assessment for the road crossing? Mr and Mrs Avery-Wright maintain that the school was in breach of its statutory duty of care to William, and I agree with that. The lawyers representing the public liability insurer, the RSA, have conceded legal liability for his death, but the school has still not apologised for its negligence.
	Mr and Mrs Avery-Wright have been let down by the Health and Safety Executive and the CPS, which decided not to prosecute the school for the catastrophic breach of its own health and safety rules, even though it had already identified the risk and the potential for fatalities. The coroner could not have been more clear about those failings, but the HSE decided that that was not sufficient. I disagree with its findings. They were let down by West Sussex county council, which received letters saying that the road was dangerous. However, it was only after William’s death that the speed limit was reduced from 60 to 40.
	Most of all, Mr and Mrs Avery-Wright have been let down in the most shocking and appalling way by the school following the loss of their only child. The headmaster who presided over a failure to enforce the school’s health and safety rules that resulted in the death of a promising student remains in post two years later. Throughout, he has been supported by the chair of governors, Mrs Alda Andreotti. A school has a duty of care to its students. In this case, Worth Abbey has failed in that duty in the most devastating and tragic way.
	It is more than 20 years since I was first elected this House, and I do not think that I have ever called publicly for anyone’s resignation. I do not understand, however, how two human beings, the head teacher and the chair of governors, whose primary duty should be the well-being of the children in their care, could possibly countenance staying in post when they have failed so evidently and dismally in their responsibilities with such tragic consequences. If they had any decency, they would both have resigned as a matter of principle, and it is still not too late for them to take that action to show their genuine contrition to William’s parents.

Susan Elan Jones: It is a great privilege to take part in this important debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for the thoughtful, comprehensive and moving way in which he opened the debate, which was a great credit to him and to the whole House.
	On 8 January, I stood in this Chamber to present a ten-minute rule Bill on driving penalties, with all-party support. I presented that Bill on behalf of the community of Overton and the family of Robert James Gaunt, who was tragically killed in the village in October 2009. Robert Gaunt was a nine-year-old boy who was mowed
	down by a driver while crossing the road. The driver who hit Robert was unlicensed, uninsured and horribly irresponsible. Young Robert was killed. I want to highlight the case again because it shows clearly how the laws on driving offences are not in proportion to the crime. The driver hit Robert, killed him and drove away. He did not stop, he did not report the incident. Indeed, he returned home and re-sprayed his car. He took a life, he ran away and he tried to hide the evidence. In this case, the driver incurred a pitiful sentence of 22 months, with a four-year driving ban. He served only 10 months in jail.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) said, there are clear discrepancies with what would have happened had the car been a firearm. If the case had involved a gun, a knife or a baseball bat and a life was taken, it is highly likely that the sentence would have been vastly longer. In cases when death is caused by a weapon rather than a vehicle, sentences are much longer even when the act is not premeditated.
	I recognise that a car is not a gun or a knife and I am not trying to claim that driving a car and carrying a firearm are the same thing. All I am saying is that although the use of a car is a necessity in our modern lives, especially in rural areas, that makes it all the more important that we review the situation. A car in the hands of someone irresponsible or dangerous can cause the same devastation as a firearm. A driver behind the wheel who is dangerous can cause as much damage as a pedestrian with a baseball bat, if not more. Ten months in jail for ending the life of a young boy is not right. It is not right when the deliberately dangerous actions of an individual are not treated seriously enough by the justice system.
	My ten-minute rule Bill called on the Government to consider the maximum penalties for driving offences that lead to death or serious injury. Those who cause death by driving currently face a number of charges and a large range of sentences from mere months to 14 years. No driver has been given a 14-year term since Parliament first lengthened the maximum penalty from 10 years in 2004, and the law is clearly letting families down.
	Such tragic cases have taken place all over the country. They do not stop at borders and they are not a rural, suburban or urban problem. This is a truly national problem with tragic consequences in all places. For instance, let us consider a similar incident suffered in the constituency that neighbours mine, Wrexham. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) has kindly allowed me to bring it to the attention of the House on his behalf and I know that he is working diligently for the family.
	A young woman lost her life after a driver decided to overtake another car at the end of a 70 mph dual carriageway. The driver in question braked hard when the road suddenly became a single carriageway, lost control of his vehicle and crashed head-on into a Ford that was been responsibly driven at 40 mph, considering the wet conditions that day. The driver of the Ford, Ms Christina Barchetti, suffered terrible injuries as her car was pushed through a wall into woodland. Ms Barchetti lost her life at the local hospital following the incident. She also lost the life of the unborn child that she was carrying at the time.
	Such tragic cases happen around the country and I pay tribute to the campaigning organisation Brake, which has done so much to bring the issue to the
	attention of parliamentarians and Government. These cases speak for themselves, showing the devastation experienced by families when the rules of our roads are not taken seriously enough.

Rebecca Harris: I support the hon. Lady’s speech, which strikes a chord with me. I have a constituent who lost her niece because someone who was medically unfit to drive, and knew that they were, continued to do so. I am concerned that there are occasions when people who do not consider themselves criminal or dangerous drivers, who have a previously good record and who have been warned that they are unfit continue to drive because they feel all right and cause death and serious injury. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to review the sentences for those individuals, too, so the message is sent to them that it is a serious matter if one drives after being told that one is unfit to do so?

Susan Elan Jones: That is absolutely right. One purpose of today's debate is to ensure that any review of the guidelines is comprehensive and I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point.
	Today, we are talking about the devastating results when drivers are dangerous, negligent or careless. When I presented my ten-minute rule Bill on the laws on driving, I was fully aware that no justice or consolation can be given to those families who have lost a loved one. The heartbreak experienced at the loss of a loved one cannot be cured by any debate in this House, but we can ensure that the laws in such cases reflect the crimes that we talk about.

Rehman Chishti: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she has done on this matter. As regards ensuring that the sentence is commensurate to the injury caused, does she support what I have proposed in my private Member’s Bill on driving while disqualified? At the moment, causing death by driving while disqualified has a two-year maximum sentence, whereas causing death by dangerous driving has a 14-year maximum sentence. Does she agree that the sentence for causing death by driving while disqualified should increase significantly to reflect that for causing death by dangerous driving?

Susan Elan Jones: I certainly do, and I hope that the Sentencing Council is listening to the debate.
	I urged the Government to review the sentencing guidelines for maximum penalties for driving offences that lead to death or serious injury. Today, Members are urging the Government to consider the laws on dangerous driving. It is clear that the law is not doing what it should be doing as regards driving offences. The rules and guidelines set out by the law mean that drivers who end the lives of innocent people on our roads sometimes have their sentences reduced to mere months.
	The guidelines are terribly subjective and open to interpretation, and they hold back judges from making the decisions that, in all justice, need to be made. The average sentence served by drivers who kill or seriously injure another human being—a mother, father or child—while driving is 11 months. For the family of Robert Gaunt
	in Overton, of Christina Barchetti in Wrexham, or of any of the other people mentioned today, that is clearly not justice.
	If we change the law and the sentencing guidelines are reformed properly, my hope is that it will not only bring some comfort to those who have lost treasured family members, but cause people who are uninsured, unlicensed or just frankly irresponsible to pause before they get behind a wheel.

Bob Stewart: I am really concerned about people being killed by dangerous driving. I very much support the idea that whatever the custodial sentence handed down to those drivers, if they have robbed someone of their life, through dangerous driving or stupidity, they should never in their life be given a driving licence.

Susan Elan Jones: I think the hon. Gentleman speaks for many who believe that there should be a thorough review in this area. When the Minister sums up, I would like clarity on the nature of any review that the Government will undertake. I would also like to know about the timing, because that is important. If there is a need for legislation, I hope that the Government will bring it forward, because, to put it as politely as I can, we do not have the fullest of legislative timetables, and I am sure that there would be co-operation.
	Bearing in mind what the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said, we have to be careful not to limit the powers of the courts, and careful to look at maximum penalties, including, as the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said, bail conditions. It is striking that in the Chamber today, there are Members who would probably agree on very little else, politically. Outside the Chamber, too, cross-party, we know that something has to be done on this issue. There is a tremendous amount of evidence on that. The law is not doing enough to hold accountable those who take lives in this way, or to find justice for those let down by the system.
	On behalf of families such as the Gaunts and the Barchettis, and countless others across the country, it is vital that we urge the Government to make this logical development to our system, and to consider what sentence is given for what crime. I know that none of this will bring back anybody whose life has been tragically lost in this way, but it is vital that we in Parliament, and the Government, do something to ensure that some measure of justice is done.

Greg Mulholland: In this Chamber, we often say that it is a pleasure to take part in a debate, but it gives me no pleasure to have to recount the awful experiences of my constituents, just as other hon. and right hon. Members have had to recount the awful experiences of theirs.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), whose work has been a comfort, not only to me in my desire for change but, more importantly, to the families whom I have done my best to represent, as their MP, just as he has done his best to represent the family of Ross and Clare Simons. I met Ross and Clare’s family members when they visited Parliament, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have also had
	Jamie Still’s family come to visit Parliament and No. 10. I have also had to deal with the family of David and Dorothy Metcalf. Going through what we have to go through—listening, experiencing, and sitting through the awful accounts of what the victims and their families have been through—is hard enough; imagining what the families have gone through is just about impossible.
	Already in this debate—more right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak, and I am pleased that they are here to do so—we have heard of too many incidents of the kind of criminal driving that destroys lives. There is simply a lack of adequate justice for victims and their families. I am pleased to have spoken to the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) on the issue. I am aware that a number of hon. and right hon. Members are very much involved on this issue. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who has a very recent case in her constituency, and the hon. Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Dudley North (Ian Austin), for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), and for Lincoln (Karl McCartney); there are also others whose cases I am not aware of. We must all get together and ensure change, because when we do get together, I am sure that we will get change.

Annette Brooke: My constituent, whose son was killed in a driving incident nearly a year ago, contacted me very early on with her concerns about lenient sentences. Today, the driver of the car was given a 12-month sentence. I have yet to learn all the details, but on the mother’s behalf, I would like to join my hon. Friend and others here in asking the Minister to look really carefully at sentences for driving offences.

Greg Mulholland: I thank my hon. Friend. That is another example of a sentence, given only today, that surely cannot reflect the reality of killing someone through criminal driving. I use the phrase “criminal driving” very deliberately. This debate is entitled “Dangerous Driving”, but we are all aware that what we are actually talking about are various forms of criminal driving—any form of it that has resulted in someone losing their life. One of the weaknesses in the system is the confusion in both the sentencing framework and the sentencing guidelines as to whether particular forms of criminal driving should be regarded as particularly serious. I will come back to that important point.
	I wish to relay to the House briefly the awful case of Jamie Still, who was just 16 years old, with everything to live for. He was a schoolboy in Otley, a market town in my constituency. He was out with friends on new year’s eve in 2010. At around 9 o’clock, when crossing a road in the middle of town, he was hit by a car that was travelling at 50 mph in a 30-mph shopping zone. He was flung through the air. He died later, as a result of the injuries that he sustained, in his mother’s arms; his mother managed to get to see him, but his sister did not. As people were celebrating new year’s eve and seeing in the new year, that family lost a beloved son and brother, and the community lost a young man with an awful lot to give.
	Part of the awful injustice is that despite the seriousness of the crime—a crime is clearly what it is—the perpetrator was allowed to continue driving, right up to when he
	was sentenced. He lived only a few miles away, and was seen driving in Otley—the very place where he ended this young man’s life. It is hard to imagine the distress that that must have caused Jamie’s mother, Karen, and his sister, Rebecca. The man responsible was found to be twice over the drink-drive limit. Eight months later, he was sentenced to four years, but the sentence was reduced to 12 months after he wrote to the judge—not the family—to say how sorry he was. That followed a two-year reduction in his possible sentence after he pleaded guilty, even though, at previous court hearings, he had not done so.

Rehman Chishti: The hon. Gentleman said that the offender was twice over the limit when the incident occurred. Does he agree that the laws on drink-driving and sentencing are completely inadequate? For example, the maximum first sentence for drink-driving is six months. Whether it is someone’s second, third, fourth, eighth, 10th or 15th offence, the maximum they can get is six months. That is completely unacceptable. I introduced a Bill in the House saying that repeat offenders should get stiffer sentences. Does he agree that that deserves serious consideration?

Greg Mulholland: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He is quite right. He has exposed to the House yet another area where the law simply does not make sense—it is not common sense.
	I have also had to deal with the awful deaths of David and Dorothy Metcalf, who were killed a year after Jamie Still, on new year’s day 2012, on the Stanningley bypass in Leeds. They were an honest, hard-working couple, who had just begun to enjoy retirement. They were hit by a driver—rear-ended—who was speeding at 100 mph. The impact of the crash caused the Metcalfs’ car to be thrown 10 feet in the air before it flipped over. Mr Metcalf died instantly, and Mrs Metcalf some time later in hospital. The driver, Mr Eduard Mereohra, was a Moldovan national in the UK illegally. He had been drinking all night at a party, and even the next morning he had twice the permitted level of alcohol in his system. He had previously been deported for entering the UK illegally, but somehow he had entered the country illegally for a second time. He fled the scene, only to be caught by a heroic bystander, guided by another heroic individual who told the police where the man was fleeing, having witnessed the incident from their house.
	When he was caught, Mr Mereohra first tried to deny being the driver. Later he tried to blame David Metcalf for the accident. As if that was not bad enough, to make it even more galling, he had been caught speeding a few weeks beforehand, yet nothing had been flagged up to say that he was here illegally. There was no evidence at all to suggest that he had a valid driving licence, and it could not even be established that he had a national insurance number. I still have not received an answer to that question.

Keith Vaz: The whole House will be shocked by the two cases that the hon. Gentleman has brought to our attention. In respect of the second case concerning a foreign national who has committed a crime in our country, were his convictions in Moldova, or wherever he resided, brought to the attention of the court before his sentence, or was there a problem obtaining that information?

Greg Mulholland: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Select Committee on Home Affairs, for that intervention. The speeding offence occurred in the UK. Clearly there was a catalogue of failures, which warranted a full investigation, which I asked for and got somewhere with. The most galling thing is that, because Eduard Mereohra is a foreign national in the UK illegally, he is likely to serve only half of his nine-year sentence—frankly, his offence should automatically have triggered a 14-year sentence, given the catalogue of offences—before, quite rightly, he is deported. The trouble is that we can impose no parole conditions on him in a foreign country, so it is likely that he will serve considerably less time than if he were a UK national. That is another blow for the family.
	Those are two cases with which I have dealt, both of which shattered the new year for two families in my constituency. We need change because of their experience and the experiences described by right hon. and hon. Members. The first thing that needs to change is at the core of the Jamie Still campaign, which was set up by Rebecca Still, the amazing sister of Jamie Still. As part of her grieving for her big brother, she decided to launch a petition—without even speaking to her mother. I was delighted to take that petition, along with the family, to Downing street last year. At that stage, it had amassed 13,000 signatures.
	The first aim of the Jamie Still campaign is to impose—and this is supported by the excellent charity, Brake—a bail condition in cases in which someone is charged with death by dangerous or careless driving that automatically suspends their driving licence. That is important. Brake says:
	“Brake believes drivers who kill and maim should be taken off the road once they are charged, as a condition of bail. Prosecutions often take many months to come to court, and in many cases the driver charged with causing the crash is able to continue driving, potentially putting other innocent road users in danger, and often in the same community where they caused carnage. This can be incredibly offensive and upsetting to bereaved families and people injured by the driver, but it also means that other people are being put at risk.
	If you are a teacher being investigated for misconduct, you are immediately suspended from teaching in school to protect pupils. If you are a doctor suspected of malpractice, you are immediately suspended from practising medicine to ensure no patients are harmed. Yet if you are charged with killing someone because of your bad driving, you are allowed to keep driving until you are sentenced in court”.

Bob Stewart: I made that point earlier. Not only do I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that someone should be suspended immediately, but I feel strongly that someone who has killed someone else, whether wilfully or perhaps as a result of drink-driving, should have the stigma of not being allowed to drive legally in our country ever again in their lifetime, as they have taken another life. I think that that is fair.

Greg Mulholland: I thank my hon. Friend, who has raised something, certainly in serious cases, that should be part of the review, to give the sense that those people can never get behind the wheel of a car, which they have turned into a lethal weapon.
	The second thing that needs to change—it has already been covered, and I want to add my support—is the failure of sentencing to give real justice to the families. Let me make it clear that this is not an instance of
	politicians saying, “We want longer sentences per se.” We have a confused and, in some ways, conflicted system for sentencing people. We have too many different offences and a wholly inconsistent approach when it comes to the interpretation of guidelines, and there are weaknesses in those guidelines. After four years and 20 weeks of his sentence, the driver who killed Jamie Still was allowed to move to an open prison, and could drive—potentially in the area where he had committed that crime.
	That brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) that it is absurd for driving bans to run concurrently with prison sentences. It is such an obvious, simple and common-sense thing for driving bans to begin on the day on which people can drive again, whether on weekend day release or whether they are out. Certainly, as soon as they have an opportunity to get into a car, those terms must be considered. Far too few people have received the maximum sentence available, even where it is warranted, as in some of the cases that we have mentioned.
	Another problem concerns plea bargaining and the fact that far too often the charge for dangerous driving is careless driving. I have great sympathy with Brake’s view that the solution is to get rid of the offence of causing death by careless driving and to have only the offence of dangerous driving. The judge can then sentence on the basis of appropriate guidelines, with a maximum sentence for the worst offences to lower ones for lesser offences.
	We have heard of cases today from up and down the country of terrifying, wilful, aggressive, reckless criminal driving being deemed not dangerous, but careless. That is simply dishonest, untrue and wrong. That fails people such as the family of Jamie Still. Due to plea bargaining and due to the CPS deciding that it is easier to obtain a prosecution for death by careless driving, people who are clearly guilty of dangerous driving are allowed to opt for a lower sentence. That is why we need the offence of dangerous driving with adequate sentencing guidelines for all who have driven dangerously, as all the people mentioned clearly have done.
	It seems to be police practice, at least in some areas, that someone who has failed a breath test, and is therefore deemed to have broken the law, is not automatically drug tested. There are instances where it is strongly believed, or even known, that someone has taken drugs as well as being over the drink-drive limit, but that is not tested for, because a prosecution will be guaranteed anyway. That is another factor that should be taken into consideration when assessing the severity of the offence, its recklessness, and therefore the sentence.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) said, it is utter nonsense that the maximum sentence for causing death by driving illegally while uninsured or disqualified is two years. That is absurd. In the case of David and Dorothy Metcalf, the driver was in this country illegally and therefore was not allowed to drive here, yet that could not be treated with the severity that it should have been. The fact that someone should not be behind the wheel of a car should be treated as a serious factor in increasing the sentence, as it is in other countries.
	At the moment, the families of victims of dangerous, careless driving, who are suffering the most unimaginable loss, are not eligible for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, even though they have
	lost their loved one as a result of criminal activity. Why should the families of the victims of murder or manslaughter be compensated through this important scheme, while the families of those who have died as a result of a car being driven in a dangerous and reckless way as a weapon are not? That is another example in this litany of cases of how, despite improvements, our system still does not adequately give justice to the families who have lost their loved ones.
	The lives of two families in my constituency have been devastated by the appalling criminal, reckless driving of others. In neither case did the perpetrators of those crimes receive the punishment that they deserved, and therefore the families did not receive justice. I am delighted that the review has happened, but the message from the House today is simple. We have a year of this Parliament to try to change the law. We all speak on behalf of our constituents, and I hope that our voices will be heard loud and clear and that we get not just a review but the kind of common-sense change that we are talking about today. We need justice for all the families who have been referred to today. We need justice for the Simons family, the Still family and the Metcalf family. The amazing campaigning efforts of Karen Strong, Jamie’s sister, Rebecca and Peter, Jamie’s grandfather, show that these people want change to stop such things happening to other families. We cannot prevent people from getting behind the wheel of a car and behaving in a reckless and criminal fashion, but we can, as a civilised country, sentence them appropriately. All hon. Members from both sides of the House who have had these experiences must get together. I look again to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and ask that we please have some simple, common-sense change, so that in future people will at least know that they will get real justice if they are in the awful situation of losing a loved one to such appalling, reckless, criminal behaviour.

Julie Hilling: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing this important debate. I want to approach the matter in a slightly different way and to talk a little more about what precedes a death caused by dangerous driving. I want to talk about how we do not take driving laws seriously in this country. We still believe that driving is a right and that, often, laws are there to be broken. Consider the attitude of many hon. Members to speed cameras. People talk about them being cash cows, not recognising them as devices to get us to obey the law or that they are often in place because of long campaigns by local residents about the dangers associated with a particular piece of road. We know that excessive speed is a contributory factor to the vast majority of serious accidents.
	I want to talk specifically about the number of people legally driving on our roads at this moment in time with more than 12 points on their licence. A person in Liverpool is driving with 47 points on their licence, a woman in Bolton with 27 points on her licence, and 8,000 other people with more than 12 points. What does that say about the seriousness with which we treat driving laws? The law says that people should be banned when they have 12 points, unless they would face exceptional hardship. Exceptional hardship is not about losing one’s job, but it could be about losing one’s home or other people losing their job.
	I wonder why the Squeeze singer, Chris Difford, escaped a driving ban after pleading that it would cause exceptional hardship as he would no longer be able to travel the country playing gigs. The 57-year-old, who earns up to £100,000 a year performing around the country, was caught doing 88 mph on a 70 mph road. The son of Tony Christie, famous for his song “Amarillo”, claimed exceptional hardship because he would not be able to drive his dad to gigs after he had totted up 25 points. The jockey Kieren Fallon escaped a driving ban after he claimed that it would cause exceptional hardship because the state of the racing industry was such that he could not afford a full-time driver. Premiership footballer Zak Whitbread who admitted speeding at 97 mph with 17 points escaped a ban after saying that he would not be able to find another football job if he could not drive. There are many other cases of people who have escaped bans. Not all those 8,000 people are famous, but often they are rich enough to pay a good barrister to get them off.
	Drivers cannot use the same exceptional hardship plea each time they are taken to court, but there is no central record of which plea has been used. There is also no record of whether drivers are involved in later accidents. If a driver can clock up 47 points, 27 points, or even just 15 points, it seems to me that they have a disregard for the law and therefore pose a risk to other road users.
	We need to tackle not only the sentencing of people convicted of causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving, but the whole issue of driving offences and our attitude to the way cars can be used as weapons. We need drivers to realise at every level of offence that bad behaviour will be punished in order to make our roads safer. Some 83% of the people who took The Bolton News survey believe that 12 points should mean that people are banned. We know that young people aged between 15 and 24 are more likely to die in road traffic accidents than as a result of any other single cause.
	We also need to do a great deal more to educate people about the consequences of driving badly. I was visited in my surgery on Friday by the brother of a man who was involved in a road traffic accident 30 years ago. A 14-year-old girl was killed in the accident and the man’s brother—I will call him Peter—suffered devastating injuries. He is now unable to walk properly and cannot go out without assistance. More crucially, he has an acquired brain injury that leaves him dependent on care 24 hours a day. Yes, he got compensation to help pay for the carers, but the money is now running out. His life has been ruined by the accident, and the lives of his parents and siblings have been drastically affected. Of course, a young life was also lost in the accident. What makes it worse is the fact that he was partly to blame, because he was speeding—a Jack the lad who thought that he was invincible. Still, a life was ruined and a life was lost.
	For me, this is not just about increasing penalties but about enforcing the law and educating young people about the consequences of road accidents. We need to look at graduated licences for young people. We need to ensure that action is taken rapidly on dangerous roads. I have one such road in my constituency where there have been a number of fatalities, but we have been very slow to alter the road to make it safer.
	Of course we need justice for those who have lost loved ones. Yes, we need deterrents, but we know that the number of deaths is sadly increasing. We have to
	take road safety and driving behaviour seriously and do everything in our power across the whole spectrum, from the point at which people start offending behaviour in a car to the final catastrophic effects of a terrible accident. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to see how we could strengthen legislation to try to stop these terrible accidents happening in our communities.

Andrew Griffiths: I am delighted to take part in the debate, principally because I have been asked to by a constituent, Mrs Jacqui Watson, who had the terrible plight of seeing her husband, Andrew Watson, killed when his motorbike collided with a tractor that was being driven by a 16-year-old boy. I find it incredible that such huge vehicles can be driven on our roads by 16-year-olds.
	It was a fine, sunny evening when Andrew, who was 50 years old and had 34 years of motorcycling experience, was driving along the A515 in Newborough, near Burton, along with his son Thomas, who is 21, and their friend Jason Hudson. They were all experienced motorcyclists. They came over the brow of the hill and collided with a tractor being driven by the 16-year-old boy, who had his 17-year-old girlfriend in the cab.
	The police later found that the tractor was wider than the legal limit for a vehicle driven under a category F licence by a 16-year-old, but the Crown Prosecution Service, in its wisdom, decided that because it was only marginally bigger, because the other tractor that the boy usually drove had broken down, and because he was apparently of good character, it was unable to prosecute him for any offence.
	I find it incredible that in this country we do not trust 16-year-olds to drive anything larger than a 50 cc motorbike. We do not trust them to drive a Ford Fiesta or a Mini, yet we allow them, under category F licences, to drive vehicles that can be 2.4 metres wide; to put that into context, a Ford Fiesta is less than 2 metres wide. Those tractors are huge vehicles that can go at well over 50 mph, yet we are putting them in the hands of 16-year-olds. That cannot make sense.
	We heard earlier about how a vehicle can be a weapon in the wrong hands. If that is true, how can we allow 16-year-olds to drive such large vehicles? The law allows them not only to drive such a tractor, but to tow a trailer behind it, so long as it is no wider than 2.45 metres. In the wrong hands, they are death traps on the roads, yet the law allows them to be driven in that way. Of course, much of our licensing in the UK is determined by EU directives that dictate that we must have a common approach across the whole European Union in relation to licensing, but category F is specifically a national competence. It is specifically something that the UK Government can take action on.
	It will not surprise the Minister to learn that the lives of Jacqui and her son Thomas were devastated by the loss of a beloved husband and father. The accident was of such severity that two air ambulances were needed at the scene, along with two traditional ambulances. No family should have to go through the plight and turmoil of being told that they have lost a husband or a father as a result of a road traffic accident. Accidents will always happen, and vehicles will always fall into the wrong hands, but it is up to the Government and to us as parliamentarians to do all we can to mitigate that
	and ensure that drivers on our roads are proportionately trained, that they are driving within parameters that we have agreed and that they are as safe as possible.
	I do not believe that it can be argued that it is safe to allow a 16-year-old to drive a tractor that is 2.4 meters wide and can travel at 50 or 60 mph on our roads. I urge the Minister to look at those laws, ensure that he is satisfied that they are safe and help ensure that no more families have to go through what the Watsons have gone through.

James Duddridge: My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) has made some moving points. I recall being 16 and offering to help with the harvest. I was not used to the hard work and ripped my hands to shreds within a few hours. I was completely useless at baling hay and so was given the job of driving the tractor. I had no training, as I had not even started learning to drive a car. I think that 16-year-olds, like me at the time, need that greater degree of protection.
	I also remember in 2004 offering to buy someone who was campaigning for me a beer. He expressed surprise, because I had absolutely no idea that he was 16. I bought him a diet Coke and said, “Not only can I not buy you a beer, but you cannot even drive.” He replied, “No, but I can fly.” He had a private licence and flew out of Southend airport. My point is that there should perhaps be a review of consistency and risk, as well as about what should be done.
	This has been a great debate. It has not been difficult for you to keep order, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it has been difficult in other ways. I know that I shy away from some debates in the House of Commons that I would find too emotional. It is very brave of you to be here today, so thank you for that.
	The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) mentioned that this has been a very unpartisan debate. The very moving comments made about Burton or Bolton might have been made on anywhere on both sides of the House.
	I was particularly perturbed by the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who talked not about individual but corporate actions in relation to the responsibility of schools. That made me reflect on schools in Rochford and Southend East. State schools in Southend have very good protections for passengers from errant vehicles, but that cannot be said about private schools. We should perhaps look not only at private schools, to make sure that they are treated in a similar way to public ones, but at nurseries. As the boundary between the definitions of public and private schools merges in the form of free schools, such protections may become even more important.
	I want to speak in today’s debate because of a tragic incident that happened in 2009 at 9.45 at night only a few hundred yards away from where I live. With my young children, it had been a particularly difficult day and—unimaginably, once I had found out what had happened so close to my house—I slept through the entire incident, and was unable to provide any support at the time. Subsequently, I hope that I have been able to do a few things.
	The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) struggled to find the right words about this being a “good” debate, but we should not shy away from using such a word. Clearly, we all have horrific examples to bring to the House, but perhaps some good can come from those examples. That is why I am speaking about what happened at 9.45 pm on Friday 6 March 2009.
	A 17-year-old pupil from Southend grammar school was driving a Citroen C1. That evening, there had been a birthday in the area. He had only recently passed his driving test, and he was showing off. He was attempting a handbrake turn to impress a group of about 14 of his friends. The police now estimate that he was travelling at about 47 mph in a residential road. He simply did not have the skills to control the vehicle, and he hit all the teenagers. Teenagers who gather and go from place to place for a birthday celebration tend to chat; getting from A to B is as much a part of the birthday celebrations as the actual outing to a location. Some of the individuals were knocked through a garden fence, and others were thrown as high as 15 feet into the air. The noise was evidently enormous, despite its not rousing me from my sleep.
	Thankfully, the accident happened opposite a doctors’ surgery, and several of the doctors lived in the surrounding area. The fact that they were able to get to the scene within minutes lessened the final impact on those people. Fortuitously, some of the students or individuals who could get up off the ground and help had recently been through first aid training. Again, that may very well have saved a few people.
	Ten youngsters were defined by the hospital as seriously injured, of whom eight had head injuries and broken limbs, and two had significant physical injuries. Eleanor McGrath, who was 14—she is the individual to whom I particularly wish to draw attention—was fatally injured and, sadly, her life support machine was switched off after the accident. Another individual, a young man of 16, has been profoundly physically and mentally impacted. A whole generation of people from Southend have been affected.
	Although no one would wish such an event on anyone, the accident has had a profound and positive impact on a generation of people in Southend. Trying to find some rhyme or reason behind the event, Eleanor’s friends decided that they wanted to do something. They launched an awareness campaign called Driving with Grace—Eleanor’s middle name was Grace—and they sent a DVD to all schools in the United Kingdom. The campaign received support from our local Essex police and the Safer Roads Foundation. Indeed, many secondary schools still use the DVD now, and Eleanor’s friends received an award for their work from the police in 2010. Road crashes are the most common form of death and serious injury for young people. The Driving with Grace campaign seeks to highlight the importance, for someone driving, of thinking about what they are doing before they act.
	Under-25s make up only a tenth of the population, but a quarter of the number of drivers killed on the roads, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, so they are clearly a massive danger. Far too many people, when they pop out to drive, do not feel that they are in a powerful weapon that they risk killing with: they have no idea of such possibilities. As young men, they feel invincible.
	I think that I can say that; I am sure young women also feel invincible behind the wheel. In my experience of observing drivers in my part of the country, Southend, I am certainly aware that there is a particular problem with young drivers.
	Eleanor’s parents have engaged in extensive research over several years. They did not leap to react immediately, but have thought deliberatively about what needs to be done and have tried to be as constructive as possible. When people suffer such tragedies, they sometimes react by expecting absolutely everything to be done, including by encroaching on people’s liberties and incurring costs, but Eleanor’s parents have been very responsible. Specifically, they believe in the graduated driving licence, which was mentioned earlier—that a compulsory P plate should be displayed for three years after someone passes their test, signalling a probation period for new drivers.
	People who have just passed their driving test can feel on top of the world—invincible—and it is a little less macho to have a big “P” on the back of their 1-litre banger or on a new car. I hope that that might change attitudes. I am sure that when hon. Members see a learner, they give them a little extra space. If they cut us up by accident, stall or are a little over-cautious, we think, “Well, I was there once.” The moment people pass their driving test and the L plate is removed, however, we expect them to be equally competent as a driver who has perhaps driven for 20, 30 or 40 years and passed an advanced driving test. The probationary plates not only allow other people to exercise a little more care around such drivers, but demonstrate to their peer group that they are still young adults and are still learning.
	Graduated driving licence systems are in place in several states in the US, and in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and Northern Ireland. We do not need to make up a new system to find a proven one that works. I call on the Government to introduce, initially, a simple three-year system, but there are several other options. In different areas, features of systems include compulsory logging of the initial 120 hours of driving experience, a minimum period of driving on certain types of roads or a two-stage probationary period, which in some places is recognised by the use of P1 and P2 plates. In some places, there are peer passenger restrictions, so that only a certain number of people of a certain age are allowed in the car after dark or late at night. I urge caution in considering that option, because it would have other implications such as young people being left on the streets. There are certainly many options for the Government to consider if they do not want a simple three-year probationary period.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), has been very good on this issue. I visited him with Eleanor’s parents at the beginning of the month and left him with a probationary plate to put on his desk as a reminder of Eleanor and of what I expect of him, which is to bring forward a solution. I am reassured to see the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who is a very able Minister, on the Front Bench. I know that he will take these matters just as seriously. I ask him to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, to ensure that these issues are joined up.
	Being a wise Minister, I am sure that my hon. Friend will not have a knee-jerk reaction, leap to the Dispatch Box and announce 10 of the excellent ideas that we have heard today as Government policy, however tempting that may be. All too often with this type of debate, changes drip out subsequently. I ask him not to write to Members who have contributed to the debate straight afterwards, but to write to us six months to the day and say, “After calm reflection, this is what has happened over the past six months as a result of the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and the contributions that were made by Members across the House.” That would be a worthwhile initiative and I hope that the Minister will consider taking part in it.

Richard Graham: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak at the end of this debate on the law on dangerous driving. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing the debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting such a good example of a non-party political debate on an issue that, literally in this case, affects life and death.
	The debate began with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood telling us the desperately sad story of Ross and Clare Simons, which he pieced together with the precision of the professional historian that he is. He rightly left it to us to imagine, all too vividly, the emotions involved for the family and friends.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) described the death of the mother-in-law of the Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as that of William Avery-Wright. We have also heard from the hon. Members for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths). Lastly, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) told us the ghastly story of Eleanor. All those contributions will have moved everybody in the House. We must not forget all the other Members who are not here, but who have similar horror stories to tell from their constituencies.
	In 2012, 377 motorists were found guilty of an offence that resulted in a fatality and 116 were found guilty of causing death through dangerous driving. That is almost 500 unnecessary deaths a year or almost three every two days. One of those deaths, which occurred almost exactly two years ago in March 2012, was that of my constituent, Paul Stock, who was affectionately known as Gloucester’s best welder. He was killed while crossing a road in Tredworth with his wife, Mandy, by a man called Graham Godwin. Mr Godwin was riding the scooter that caused the death while disqualified, uninsured and speeding, and there was a female riding pillion on the one-seat scooter. He had multiple previous driving convictions and said in court that the law did not apply to him. The judge described him as
	“an absolute menace on the road”
	and gave him what he explained was the maximum possible sentence—just two years in prison.
	Paul’s widow, Mandy, later wrote to me saying that the law needed to be changed to reflect the devastating consequences of such a crime, whether it causes death
	or serious injury, when the sentences for careless or dangerous driving can be up to 14 years, as other Members have mentioned. By extraordinary coincidence, I had the opportunity to raise the matter at Prime Minister’s questions almost immediately afterwards. In responding to my question, the Prime Minister said:
	“It is important that we give our courts a sense that when there are appalling, extraordinary crimes, they can take exemplary action. That is important in a justice system.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 904.]
	I was fortunate that Mandy’s sister, Sue, was a constituent of the Prime Minister. They were therefore both able to meet him at one of his surgeries not long after that. I was also grateful that the Secretary of State for Justice allowed Mandy, Sue and me to see him shortly afterwards.
	There is no doubt that everyone in the House agrees that the current sentencing guidelines are inadequate. The question is what should be done and when. Although one or two Members, notably the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), have made some interesting points about wider issues relating to driving offences, I want to focus on the sentencing guidelines for cases in which people die as a direct result of behaviour that comes under the general heading of dangerous driving. In particular, I want to speak about situations in which drivers have caused death while uninsured and disqualified. I believe that we should let judges decide what sentence is merited when Mr Godwin lifts two fingers not just to Paul’s widow, Mandy, but to our whole system of justice by saying that the law of the land does not apply to him. I believe that we need consistency in seeing that justice is done and that maximum flexibility should be left to the judge to interpret how severe the sentence should be for individuals who have caused death.
	I am in no doubt that all Members agree on that simple proposition. I am in no doubt that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Justice agree. I am in little doubt that they intend to bring legislation forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East suggested that Ministers should mull this matter over for the next six months. I do not believe that further consideration is needed. Ministers are well aware of the issue and of what needs to be done. Therefore, I urge them not to linger. I know that the Secretary of State had hoped to bring new legislation before Parliament this spring. I hope that the Minister will confirm today that that is what they intend to do. The time has come for all those who have been mentioned in this debate and all the constituents of Members who are not here to feel that the law is on their side and that judges will be able, where appropriate, to sentence people much more severely than they can at present.

Andy Slaughter: It is a privilege to respond for the Opposition to this debate on a serious and tragic subject. Dangerous driving is a difficult issue that the law has wrestled with for a long time. It has legal, practical and, above all, human consequences, and it is about certain people’s relationship with the motor car, which we do not seem to be able to get right even after more than a century.
	Today’s debate has illustrated that Members of all parties can rise to the occasion and meet the challenge. The issue brings together our role as lawmakers, our
	duty to our constituents and our ability to campaign for change. The nine speeches that we have heard have shown exactly how Members can bring those elements together. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for permitting it. He began with the case of Ross and Clare Simons, which set the tone of the debate about how horrific the consequences of deaths and serious injuries caused by dangerous driving can be.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) spoke about individual cases in his constituency, as all Members did, but he also mentioned cycling, to which I will return in a moment. I know that he has championed in the House not just cycling but the issue of the particular risks faced by cyclists.
	The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) spoke bravely about his 13-year-old constituent William Avery-Wright, and without fear or favour spoke about what he described as the negligence and poor treatment that that young man and his family had received. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) talked about her constituent Robert Gaunt. Only about two weeks ago, she tabled a private Member’s Bill that would deal with many of the issues that we have discussed today.
	We heard a detailed speech by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). He was particularly moving when he talked about the case of Jamie Still and others that, with his usual assiduousness, he has made himself the champion of. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) talked about people who have been driving when they should have been disqualified, and who should never have been behind the wheel in the first place. She also talked about how we can deal with driving standards, which I shall come to in a moment, and particularly about the graduated driving licence.
	The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) surprised some of us with his description of the tragic death of Andrew Watson at the hands of a 16-year-old driver who was driving a vehicle that he was clearly unable to cope with, whether or not he should have been permitted to have it. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) described a particularly tragic case, which showed how a single incidence of dangerous driving can traumatise not just a family or an individual but an entire community. Finally, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) described his constituent’s tragic case and then brought us back to the issue of sentencing policy, to which I will now turn.
	Each case is unique and creates a lasting wound for the friends, family and community of the victim, but this is not a new issue. We have been dealing with it for decades. The North report, 25 years ago, was a full, clear and serious report that pointed out that the courts were not dealing with serious driving cases with the appropriate severity, particularly when there were aggravating factors such as the driver being under the influence of drink or drugs. In criminal practice at that time—I think the Minister is old enough to remember this, and I certainly am—the issue of consequence was often discussed. The culpability of the driver was not properly balanced with the consequences. We have moved on substantially from that. For example, we now have the offences of dangerous driving, with a maximum
	two-year sentence, causing serious injury by dangerous driving, with a maximum five-year sentence, and causing death by dangerous driving, with a maximum 14-year sentence. Parliament has given the courts the ability to deal appropriately with the degree of consequence as well as the degree of culpability. Both are relevant factors, but we have moved away from the era in which the primary consideration was simply the quality of the driving.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his helpful comments. On that point, may I bring to his and the House’s attention the problem of the difference between the charges of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving? The latter is when the driving fell below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver, and the former is when it fell far below that standard. As we have heard today, there are some cases—I believe that there are many, and I have asked the Minister for a review—in which the driving has clearly fallen below that standard, yet people are charged with causing death by careless driving, not by dangerous driving.

Andy Slaughter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The definitions of careless and dangerous driving are relatively new, having been introduced to try to correct defects in the reckless driving law. I will say a bit more about maximum sentences and sentencing policy, but I was coming first to the point that he has just made.
	Many problems arise not necessarily from sentencing policy from Crown Prosecution Service guidelines and charging policy. CPS guidelines have moved on again, because as with every type of case, the CPS has to consider the realistic prospect of conviction as well as the public interest. In the past, it perhaps did not examine driving cases with the same assiduousness as other criminal cases. I believe that that has begun to change. The consequence was that charges were either not brought at all or brought at a lower level, because the CPS did not believe that there was a realistic prospect of success. In part, that may have been due to the influence of public opinion about standards and quality of driving, which has changed a great deal over the years, as it has in relation to driving under the influence.

Richard Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the general public’s reaction, which he has described, may have been exacerbated by the fact that in 2011, the latest year for which we have complete data, of the 20 cases of those found guilty of causing death while uninsured or disqualified, the average custodial sentence actually served was only 8.4 months?

Andy Slaughter: I will come back to the issue of sentencing—the offence that the hon. Gentleman mentions carries a much lower maximum sentence than the ones that I have mentioned—but first I wish to explain my point about charging policy, which still leaves something to be desired. It is not a straightforward matter. First, there is the question of the degree to which the driving has fallen below the standard of competent driving, as the hon. Member for Leeds North West mentioned. That judgment needs to be made by the CPS.
	In addition, having decided what level of offence to charge, there is the issue of seriousness regarding the quality of driving, and that of aggravating or mitigating
	factors, particularly if they pertain to the individual accused. Such matters are not straightforward, and again, on occasion, prosecutors err on the side of caution when deciding what to charge and what are their prospects of success. In the most serious driving cases it is open to the CPS to charge someone with manslaughter, but that happens very rarely.
	Hon. Members from across the House have reviewed the nature of offences—again, in response to pressure from parliamentarians and the general public over time—and a number of changes were made by the previous Labour Government. In particular, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving was increased from 10 to 14 years, as it was for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. The Road Safety Act 2006 introduced new offences of causing death by careless driving or by driving illegally. Those offences attract lower sentences—five years, I think, in the first case, and two years in the second—but they are new offences that came into effect in 2008.
	Although it concerns a more recent offence, perhaps for completeness I should mention the offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, which again attracts a maximum five-year sentence. That was introduced through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and both the Minister and I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee. That offence was contained in one of the few clauses of the Bill that attracted unanimous support in Committee, and it arose out of a private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). That is significant not because he is also a doughty campaigner on these issues, but because many individual advancements in legislation have come about through private Member’s Bills or the actions of individual Members on behalf of their constituents, and indeed through debates such as this.
	There have been substantial changes and increases in maximum sentences. That allows for new sentencing guidelines, and for longer—and indeed more careful—sentences to be given, since all the factors I have described must be taken into account by the sentencer. New offences were created where lacunae in the law were identified, which is right. The changes in law under the previous Labour Government led to the substantial revision of sentencing guidelines in 2008. I will not go through those in detail, but they substantially increased some of the guideline sentences and gave clear instructions to the courts about how aggravating or mitigating factors should be dealt with.
	Although the sentence of just a few years for taking a life will always seem inadequate to the family of the victim, I suspect that what often causes most concern to families are the sentences handed out for some of the “lesser” offences such as causing death by careless driving or while driving illegally. Those sentences can be measured in months, or perhaps just one or two years, and that will never seem an adequate punishment for the taking of a life.
	As I have said, steps were taken a decade ago, and more recently, and the ball is now firmly in the court of this Government. Sentencing guidelines are being looked at again, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know that—as always—he will give a careful and thoughtful response about when and where he believes
	the sentencing guidelines are going, and say what is in the Government’s mind regarding improvements in the law.
	Before I conclude, I wish to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East. Although we have focused narrowly—quite properly, as this is the subject of the debate—on the issue of dangerous driving and on lenient sentencing in particular, one cannot look at death on the road in isolation because it must be considered in the round. One must also look at prevention.
	Safety on the UK’s roads has improved immeasurably over the past 40 years, and we have gone from having almost 8,000 deaths a year in the 1970s to around 1,700 a year—a phenomenal improvement. That is against a background around the world of 1.3 million deaths due to road traffic accidents—I saw those statistics today in The Economist—the vast majority in developing countries. There are now more deaths from road traffic accidents around the world than from tuberculosis or malaria. While we can congratulate ourselves a little on the improvements in this country, there is still more to do.
	Numbers of driving offences and the use of the motor car as a weapon of destruction are increasing elsewhere, and there are particular problems in this country that we have not fully addressed. One is the issue of young drivers, who account for only 5%—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman coming towards the end of his remarks, because he has been speaking for quite a long time? Normally there are 10 minutes, maximum 15, for the shadow Minister in a Backbench Business Committee debate, but he has gone over that. Perhaps he will conclude briefly.

Andy Slaughter: I was given 15 minutes, I think, by the Backbench Business Committee, but having taken 18, another minute is the most I will stretch to.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not chance his luck. He is over his time and we need to hear the Minister as well. I would be grateful if he could conclude his remarks.

Andy Slaughter: I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Yes, we have a better record and a long way to go, particularly on young drivers—I mentioned the graduated driving licence. We could do a lot more on road safety, particularly for cyclists. The Minister will have seen the horrific figure of six cyclist deaths on the roads in London in a two-week period just before Christmas.
	I hope that, in responding, the Minister addresses the matter in the round—clearly, he will deal with it primarily from a Ministry of Justice perspective. I hope that he can give us some comfort on the central point that all hon. Members have raised: how can we deter and punish those who take lives on our roads, and how can we in some way mitigate the consequences for the sad and tragic victims and their families about whom we have heard in the debate?

Jeremy Wright: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing the debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to discuss this matter. As the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) has said, it is hard to take pleasure in such a debate, but it is right that we take pride in it. It has been an excellent debate. All hon. Members who have spoken have approached the matter in exactly the right spirit—they have spoken with both passion and a great deal of justified emotion.
	As hon. Members have made clear, road traffic offences often have extraordinarily serious consequences—poor driving behaviour can result in injuries and fatalities. In these cases, the effect is felt not simply by the individual, but by their families. We have heard a great number of examples. We have heard about Ross and Clare Simons, Rob Jeffries, William Avery-Wright, Robert Gaunt, Jamie Still, David and Dorothy Metcalf, Andrew Watson, Eleanor McGrath and Paul Stock. Many others have been mentioned, but many have not. Some were old, some were young, and they were from up and down the country. It is important that we recognise that their sacrifices need to be discussed in the context of the criminal justice system and the system beyond it.
	Hon. Members will understand that I cannot comment on the specific details of any sentencing case, because specific sentences are decided independently of the Government by the courts. In deciding what sentence to impose, the courts must take account of all the details of the offence and the offender, including both aggravating and mitigating factors, and give consideration to the culpability of the offender and the harm caused. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) has made clear, the cases are difficult, and it is not easy to draw rules and regulations from individual examples. He is right. The courts have recourse to sentencing guidelines, which have been mentioned a number of times in the debate. I will come back to them in a moment.
	Road traffic offences are particularly difficult because the harm caused often outweighs the offender’s culpability. However, the law seeks to punish those who cause death or injury on our roads proportionately to the blameworthiness of the driver. A variety of different agencies and organisations must play their part in such cases. We expect them to do so properly and with sensitivity. Those agencies are both within and without the criminal justice system, including, of course, schools, in some cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) spoke movingly of deaths occurring on or near school premises. Knowing him as I do, I know that he will almost certainly have raised those matters with colleagues at the Department for Education, but just in case, I will ensure that those colleagues are fully aware of the points he has made.
	Similarly, there are matters of licensing to consider. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), is in the Chamber. I know he will take close account of what has been said on a variety of licensing issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) made serious points on the vehicles that people of different ages are permitted to drive, which I know will
	be considered further. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) made points on the need for a compulsory probationary period for drivers, which will be considered very carefully.
	The Crown Prosecution Service and its involvement in bringing the right charges were mentioned. The charges considered by courts are dependent on the charges that the CPS chooses to bring. That will be based on its assessment of the quality of a defendant’s driving both preceding and at the time of impact. The CPS must give careful consideration when making charging decisions in cases involving driving that has led to a death. In deciding whether to charge death by dangerous driving or death by careless driving, it is the standard of driving to which prosecutors must have careful regard. As other hon. Members have explained, to amount to dangerous driving, the driving in question must be deemed to be far below what would have been obvious to a competent and careful driver. For careless driving, the driving needs to have fallen below the standards of a competent and prudent driver. Of course, each case should be looked at individually and decided on its own facts. Many things will play a part in those considerations.
	The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) mentioned cycling. He was right to do so; cyclists are particularly vulnerable. I will look carefully, as he urges me to do, at British Cycling’s recommendations on the matter, as will colleagues in the Department for Transport.
	It is right that we consider what happens after a charge has been brought but before a case comes to trial. A number of right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), made points on the need for interim driving bans between conviction and sentence, and for bail conditions to be considered. Hon. Members will know that the courts have those options. I would hope that they are carefully considered in all appropriate cases.
	A great deal of debate was concentrated on sentencing. Successive Parliaments—indeed, successive Governments, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith said—have worked to ensure that we have a substantial framework of driving offences and penalties on the statute book. This Government, too, are committed to ensuring that the framework continues to provide the courts with the range of offences and penalties that they need to deal with the whole range of unacceptable driving behaviour on our roads.
	At the most serious end of the framework, fatalities hold a special place in criminal law, as they should, and robust penalties are available where a death is caused by bad driving. The most culpable offenders—those who have caused death by dangerous driving, or by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs—face penalties of up to 14 years in prison. They are also disqualified from driving for a minimum of two years—often for much longer—and have to sit an extended retest before regaining a licence.
	A number of hon. Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), the hon. Member for Dudley North and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West—made points relating to the length of driving bans, and in particular what happens when a defendant serves a custodial sentence. It is the case that the courts should consider and take into account the length of any custodial sentence when fixing the appropriate
	length of driving ban. That is for precisely the reason mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West and others: it clearly would not be right, in appropriate cases, for all of the ban to be served in custody.
	Where death is caused and there is sufficient evidence of gross negligence, drivers can be charged with the offence of manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Following the 2005 review of road traffic offences, two new offences, to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith rightly referred, were created. Since 2008, they have been available to prosecutors to deal with drivers who cause death by careless driving, or who cause death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. The maximum penalties for these offences are, respectively, five years’ and two years’ imprisonment, and they have a minimum disqualification period of a year. Again, the court has the discretion to order a retest.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West urges us to abolish the offence of causing death by careless driving. I understand his argument, but he will appreciate that there are, of course, risks. The offence was created because in many cases the choices available to a prosecutor were either to bring a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, or a simple charge of careless driving where a death had resulted. If prosecutors felt unable to prove dangerous driving under the definitions we have discussed, they were left with what many would consider the inadequate remedy of a simple charge of careless driving. That was the reason why the offence was brought in, and we have to think through very carefully the consequences of removing it from the statute book.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the Minister for giving way and for his useful round-up of the debate. Does he not accept that the greater ease of getting a potential conviction for death by careless driving is being misused, because there are cases—I would like to discuss some with him—where people’s driving clearly fell far below the standard and was clearly wilful and grossly dangerous? I believe it is being misused. That is why Brake believes it would be more sensible to categorise them all as dangerous driving, and then have appropriate guidelines and appropriate sentencing from less to maximum.

Jeremy Wright: As I said at the outset, it is difficult for me to comment on particular cases, and it is for Crown prosecutors to decide what the appropriate charge should be. We would all expect, however, that where they feel they are able to prove that driving fell far below the required standard, dangerous driving would be the appropriate charge; or, indeed, as others have said, in cases of gross negligence manslaughter would be the appropriate charge. The difficulty is that where prosecutors believe that in their judgment it is not possible to prove that driving fell far below the required standard, were we to remove this offence from the statute book they would simply be left with the charge of careless driving, which, of course, has considerably lower penalties.

Robert Buckland: I wonder whether my hon. Friend could widen the issue. Prior to the change in the law in 1991, the old offence of reckless driving used to apply—the subjective test. There were a lot of problems with that
	test, which is why we went to an objective test, but does he think that there is any merit in looking again, 20 years on, at whether there are some merits in either what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West says, or looking again at a subjective test?

Jeremy Wright: There is merit in listening carefully to all that has been said in this excellent and thoughtful debate, and it is right that I consider many of the ideas and thoughts expressed in it, so I hear exactly what my hon. Friend says.
	On ensuring that the law is effective, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith said, we have introduced a variety of new offences over the years to fill perceived gaps. We have created a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, ensuring that dangerous drivers are punished appropriately when their actions have serious consequences short of death. The new offence fills the previous gap by specifically targeting cases in which dangerous driving results in serious injury. In addition, the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which received Royal Assent on 25 April, introduced the new offence of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of certain controlled drugs in excess of set limits. The new drug-driving offence will improve the law available for tackling the problem of drug-driving, which presents a significant road safety risk. That resulted from the campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and the death of one of his constituents. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith said, many of these changes come from such sources.
	The Sentencing Council, which has been mentioned several times, has developed guidelines for the courts when dealing with these offences. It is important to recognise the distinction between the Sentencing Council’s guidelines and maximum sentences, the latter being for the Government and Parliament to set. The Sentencing Council sets guidelines for how courts ought to approach sentencing within those maximums, and has developed guidelines for the courts when dealing with this type of offence. Summary offences, including dangerous driving and careless driving, are dealt with within the magistrates courts sentencing guidelines—most recently updated in 2012—and the sentencing guidelines on causing death by driving were published by the then Sentencing Guidelines Council in 2008. The latter covers the offences of causing death by dangerous or careless driving as well as causing death by dangerous driving while under the influence of drink or drugs and causing death by driving unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.
	Several Members have referred to those sentencing guidelines, so it might be worth my drawing their attention to one or two specifics within them. First, on the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, it is an additional aggravating factor—in fact, the first in the list—if a person has previous convictions for motoring offences, particularly offences that involve bad driving or the excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs before driving. Causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood mentioned, is also on the list. On that list are offences committed at the same time such as driving other than in accordance with the terms of a valid licence, driving while disqualified,
	driving without insurance, taking a vehicle without consent and driving a stolen vehicle. These matters are in the existing guidelines.

Greg Mulholland: I am grateful to the Minister for his thoroughness and his generosity in giving way, but he has slightly missed my point, which was not about previous convictions, but cases where someone is breathalysed, given a blood test and shown to be over the drink-driving limit and therefore to have broken that law. In such cases, people are not always also drug-tested, even if drugs are suspected, and that is quite wrong. If someone is over the limit and also under the influence of drugs, those two things make the act more reckless and more criminal, and they should have a higher sentence.

Jeremy Wright: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, who will recognise that the addition in the statute book of the drug-driving offence makes it more likely that that will be considered. My point about the guidelines is that consideration is also given to other offences committed at the same time as the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.

Richard Graham: The Minister is correct about the provisions, but if someone has caused death by driving when uninsured, disqualified and under the influence of alcohol, the maximum is still two years.

Jeremy Wright: Yes, indeed, but that of course is a separate point. As I hope I indicated, I have listened carefully to what has been said, specifically about sentencing for the offence of causing death while disqualified from driving. We will take away everything that has been said, but I have paid particular attention to his point. The Justice Secretary wrote to the Sentencing Council—as it now is—asking it to review the death by driving guideline, and it has agreed to include that in its programme of work.

Jim Shannon: I apologise for not being present earlier. Is there a reciprocal agreement between this country and the Northern Ireland Assembly that if someone is disqualified from driving in Northern Ireland, that disqualification will apply in England, and vice versa?

Jeremy Wright: We have striven to ensure that disqualifications, wherever they take place, are reflected in the knowledge of the courts here. I am sure that I will be able to give the hon. Gentleman more specific reassurance in writing, but I am confident that what he says is correct. I am sure that those of us on this side of the water would want to know about disqualifications on the other side.

Susan Elan Jones: When does the Minister expect the review to be completed? Given what he said earlier, may I ask whether there would be room in the legislative timetable if we needed to reconsider the maximum penalties?

Jeremy Wright: As I said earlier, the review of sentencing guidelines that the Sentencing Council has been asked to conduct is not a review of maximum penalties, which it would be for the Government to consider. The
	Government will certainly consider all that has been said today, including what has been said by Members on both sides of the House about maximum penalties. We would need to ensure that any work done by the Sentencing Council was co-ordinated with what the Government were doing.
	We will, of course, make every effort to make legislative time available for measures that we believe are urgent. Having emerged blinking into the daylight from the usual channels into my current job, I know better than to commit parliamentary time for any purpose, but I will make every effort to ensure that when we believe that there is a good case for change, space will be found.
	Even in the context of this very worthwhile debate, we should take account of figures released by the Department for Transport. According to those figures, between 2011 and 2012 the number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police fell by 7.7%, to 1,754. That is the lowest figure on record. The number of casualties fell by 4%, and there was also a fall in the number of people who were seriously injured. That does not, of course, mean that there is any room for complacency. Every death and every serious injury is a tragedy, and it remains vital for us to reduce the number of people who are killed and seriously injured on our roads. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) that we must think about education as well as enforcement. There is a great deal more to be said about that, but it will not fit neatly within the confines of this debate.
	As I have said, we are continuing to look closely at the legislative framework relating to serious driving offences, and we are considering whether the current maximum penalties reflect the seriousness of offending behaviour. I have listened carefully to what has been said this evening, and I will consider it all further. I entirely understand the calls for urgency that we heard from, for example, my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Leeds North West, but I am also conscious of what I consider to be the wise advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East. It is important for us to consider these matters in the round, and to do so in a way that does not create discrepancies in the sentencing system. We must ensure that we understand fully how we can adapt our sentencing practice to deal with cases such as the many terrible ones that have been raised this evening, and to deal fairly and sensibly with driving offences such as those that we have discussed.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and even more grateful for the excellent way in which Members have approached the subject. I will consider carefully what they have said.

Chris Skidmore: I would like to sum up this Back-Bench debate by first thanking the Minister and the shadow Minister for their positive, constructive comments. I particularly want to thank the Minister for agreeing to look closely at what has been said today. Eight hon. Members have spoken, and a further eight have made positive interventions, and I hope that the transcript of the debate will be sent to the Sentencing Council.
	We have heard some horrendous stories of lives, often young ones, being tragically cut short, often by cowards driving dangerously under the influence of
	drugs or drink. Some of those drivers were already disqualified, some were speeding, some fled the scene of the accident. We have also heard about the paltry sentences that are handed down to those cowards. I was shocked to discover from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) that a sentence of only 12 months had been handed down in her constituency only today. If only one question emerges from today’s debate, it is this: why should we as parliamentarians tolerate such short sentences for such devastating crimes?
	At the same time, however, we have all seen the glimmer of human spirit that has shone through in the form of the bravery of those families who, though they are living with unspeakable pain and tragedy, are determined to campaign for justice for their loved ones. I mentioned that today was the first anniversary of the deaths of Ross and Clare Simons. Their families are at this moment watching our debate on a wide-screen television in the Cherry Tree pub in Oldland Common. They are determined to ensure that they get justice for Ross and Clare. Indeed, that is the title of their campaign. They know that nothing will bring Ross and Clare back, just as nothing will bring back Jamie, William, Eleanor, Paul, Robert, Andrew, Rob, David and Dorothy, all of whom have been mentioned in the debate today. So what will justice involve? What are the families of Ross and Clare, and of all the others who have been killed in tragic incidents, fighting for? Justice must mean that we, at the highest level in the House, must ensure that those people did not die in vain.
	This debate has helped to give those families a voice here in Parliament, but justice is not merely about words. I have heard extremely wise, intelligent arguments and policies being put forward today, and the Government have kindly agreed to consider them, but justice is not only words; justice is action, and action is change. We need to change the law to ensure that we have tougher penalties for those who drive dangerously, for those who kill and maim and, above all, for those who will not take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. We as Members of Parliament must take responsibility for ensuring that those consequences are fully addressed.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the law on dangerous driving.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
	That Simon Hughes be discharged from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Sarah Teather be added.—(Greg Hands.)

PROCEDURE

Ordered,
	That Helen Goodman be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Yvonne Fovargue be added.—(Greg Hands.)

WORK AND PENSIONS

Ordered,
	That Stephen Lloyd be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Mr Michael Thornton be added.—(Greg Hands.)

NOTTINGHAM TO LINCOLN RAILWAY LINE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Patrick Mercer: May I thank your office, Madam Deputy Speaker, for making it possible for me to have this debate today? I should also like to thank the right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported the project. I will certainly allow them time to speak later, if they so wish. I thank East Midlands Trains for being helpful and supportive. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who has already given a lot of his valuable time to listening to what I and others have said about this matter. Most notably, I have received support from the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl McCartney), who came with me to see the Minister. I also thank the Minister for being present tonight, when I am sure he has other things that he would like to be doing—

Stephen Hammond: Dinner in 10 minutes, please.

Patrick Mercer: As the Minister said, his dinner is in 10 minutes, so I will be as brief as possible.
	Newark has many, many assets, probably the best of which, as has been known since at least Roman times, is the ability to communicate quickly and effectively, particularly north to south, and south to north. During my time as a Member of Parliament, one of the things that I have noticed is that it is easy for me to get to London and back, but extraordinarily difficult to get to Nottingham in the west, and less difficult to get to Lincoln in the east. My rail communications inside the area are very good in one direction, but poor in the other.
	It is interesting to note that on this 100th anniversary of the starting of the first world war, I notice that soldiers from my old regiment, the Sherwood Foresters, were able to move by train more quickly in 1914, from Nottingham to Lincoln, than they are today. That cannot make sense. I would love to see the Minister in Newark; I do not know whether he is familiar with the area. I would like him to see the huge potential in the region, which was recognised by the decision to dual the A46 from Newark to Lincoln. However, we continue to be let down by rail services going from east to west and west to east.

Mark Spencer: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on the campaign to improve links among Nottingham, Newark and Lincoln. Does he recognise that throughout Nottinghamshire rail links are not particularly good, and that villages such as Edwinstowe and Ollerton could benefit a great deal should rail links be introduced?

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend has stood firmly by me throughout this campaign and indeed with Newark business club, which I really should have mentioned earlier on. I am grateful to him for his support. I hope that I have made it clear that I am not just talking about Newark constituents.
	My hon. Friend mentioned Ollerton and Edwinstowe, and they are crucial. They are inside his patch, but I completely recognise the point that he makes. The key outcome that we are seeking from this debate is a commitment to funding the enhanced train service, which we call stage 1 of the development of the Nottingham to Newark and the Lincoln railway. I would be awfully grateful if we could make some headway on that with the Minister tonight.
	The services between Lincoln and Newark to Nottingham are far from the normal standard of service. Given that we are talking about an area of considerable economic development, it is interesting that the frequency of the trains has reduced since 2000, despite the fact that we have relentlessly growing passenger numbers and that the population of the area is due to increase considerably, not least with the Newark growth point bid, which is coming through in the next couple of years.
	I have already mentioned the economic importance of the area. That has been recognised by the east midlands councils, the Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire local enterprise partnership and the all-party parliamentary group. They have all identified the need for the railway line to be upgraded. As the Minister knows, a strategy has been developed between stakeholders and East Midlands Trains progressively to upgrade the line at a modest cost. A train service has been identified that gives increased frequency and faster journey times by extending the hourly Matlock to Nottingham trains to Newark Castle, with the hourly Leicester to Lincoln trains running non-stop between Nottingham and Newark. I will return to that point in a moment.
	The first stage of the upgrade, which I have discussed extensively with the hon. Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), would produce immediate benefits right across the line. For instance, for Lincoln, there would be a reduction in journey times. For Hykeham and Newark, there would be a doubling in frequency and a reduction in journey times. For Carlton, Burton Joyce and Fiskerton, there would be a doubling of frequency, and for Bleasby, Thurgarton and Rolleston an increase in frequency. I have no doubt that the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) will also be reflected in that.
	Subsequent stages would see additional significant benefits—notably, an express service from Lincoln and Newark every hour throughout the day; a doubling of frequency for Lincoln with a train every half hour, as is standard elsewhere; a direct service from both Lincoln and Newark to Birmingham; improved frequency of connections from Lincoln to London via Newark North Gate; and a reduced journey time from Lincoln to London. That would all strengthen the business case for a direct Lincoln to London service.
	The cost of stage 1 is extremely modest, at £700,000 per annum for an initial three years.

Stephen Phillips: The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case for this important project to which I hope the Minister is listening. He has come to the important point, which is that we are talking about an extremely small amount of money that would benefit enormously economic growth
	in places such as North Hykeham in my constituency. Given that fact, it would be a false economy, as I am sure he would agree, for the project not to go ahead.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the gallant, hon. and learned Member, who makes an extremely good point. I hope that he appreciates that I am trying to address the area—that is, not just Newark but the financial penumbra thrown by the railways throughout the area, regardless of party political divide. We all want the scheme to succeed outside our constituencies and into the area as far west as Nottingham and as far east as Lincoln.
	We think that the initial three years, which would eventually cost £2.1 million in total, could easily be paid for through the franchise extension and/or the forthcoming round of local sustainable transport funding. The cost is just half the cost of a brand new service to Westbury, for instance, which is far smaller than Lincoln and for which the Department for Transport is paying £4.2 million from the local sustainable transport fund. Using DFT standard assessment rules, the business case for the stage 1 improvements is strong, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.16. Planned development of housing and employment strengthens the argument for the need for improvement and the business case.
	The benefits of stage 1, and the extra passengers and revenue it would generate, would greatly strengthen the case for funding the subsequent three stages from moneys that have already been made available to Network Rail. During a visit to Derby, a city that many of us hold dear to our hearts, on 2 November 2012, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated:
	“I am really willing to work with the East Midlands to improve the quality of bids, make sure that they get the money and funding that they deserve”.
	This scheme provides the perfect opportunity to do just that, at, I underline for the Minister, a terribly modest cost.
	In addition, the statement by the Transport Secretary on 26 March last year made it clear that the Department for Transport
	“will look to negotiate further passenger benefits”
	during discussions to extend the East Midlands Trains franchise to April 2017. Funding the extra trains on the Lincoln line would deliver real benefits for passengers at a reasonable cost to taxpayers, especially if combined with a successful local sustainable transport fund contribution.
	The earliest that the improved service can be introduced is May 2015. That would, happily, coincide with the opening of both the civil war museum in Newark and the exhibition at Lincoln castle to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta, which is terribly important and on which the hon. Member for Lincoln might want me to give way. He does not, but I know that he feels strongly about these points.
	The last date that East Midlands Trains can apply for the required train paths is 8 August 2014. However, before then the company needs to reach agreement with other operators over the additional access rights it needs and to hold public consultation on the service changes. Realistically, that process must start by 30 April.
	I promised the Minister I would be brief and I am extremely grateful to those who have supported me.

Mark Spencer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being generous with his time. He makes a strong economic case, but does he also recognise the social and well-being benefits that extra travel and ability to travel will bring to many constituencies and constituents?

Patrick Mercer: My hon. Friend recognises a fact that I was about to point out. Of course we are talking money, and unfortunately, matters of government almost always revert to money, but there are real social benefits. I know, for instance, that the hon. Member for Nottingham South, who is present, uses the train extensively to travel between my constituency, where she is happy enough to live, and hers. The social benefits of being able to move more easily from west to east, and from east to west, across our various patches, are desperately important.
	The key outcome that we seek from the Minister is a commitment to funding the enhanced train service that we identify as stage 1 of the upgrade of the Nottingham to Newark and the Lincoln railway. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am most grateful to you and the House for indulging me.

Karl McCartney: I thank my colleague, the hon. and gallant Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for letting me speak in this debate. I will not take up too much time, because I am conscious that we would like to hear from the Minister and give him as much time to reply as possible.
	I want to add a few details from a Lincoln perspective, as we are discussing the Lincoln-Nottingham corridor. The economic importance of that corridor was recognised when, pre-1997, under a Conservative Government, a dual carriageway was built between Newark and Lincoln, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That has been extended all the way to Nottingham in more recent years. It is of crucial economic importance. We have road transport infrastructure but we would like the rail infrastructure, all the way from Nottingham to Lincoln, to match it.
	When I was lucky enough to have the honour and privilege of being elected Member of Parliament for Lincoln, I inherited the only city in the country that was unfortunate enough not to have a quick, fast, direct route to London. That has been improved, but we have only one service to London a day, and none at weekends. Unfortunately, we also had one of the least frequent and slowest cross-country services, and that is what we are tonight seeking to ensure that the Department for Transport addresses.
	The Lincoln-Newark-Nottingham service is well below the normal standard of all comparable routes in all key respects—frequency, speed, capacity and onward connections. Lincoln has only one train per hour to its core city, Nottingham, whereas most similar places have two, three or even four to theirs; I cite core cities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds as examples. Moreover, the Lincoln-Nottingham service ran every half-hour until 2002, when half the trains were withdrawn because of operational difficulties elsewhere on the rail network, following the Hatfield crash. Those difficulties have long since been overcome, but Lincoln-Nottingham is the only service reduced in 2002 not to have been restored to former standards.
	The trains that were withdrawn ran every hour directly between Lincoln and Birmingham. When they were withdrawn in 2002, Lincoln and Newark not only suffered a reduction in frequency, but lost their direct service to Derby and Birmingham—a double whammy. The line is characterised by out-of-date service levels on Sundays, when there are no services from Nottingham to Lincoln before 4.30 pm, despite the significant increase in leisure and commercial activity on Sundays in recent years—a point alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer). That highlights just how far services on the line have fallen below people’s expectations today.
	In 1912, fast Lincoln-Nottingham trains took 45 minutes; now they take around 50 minutes because of speed limits, and many trains take more than an hour because of extra stops. For the avoidance of any doubt, it should be noted that the things that make the service substandard are not the responsibility or fault of East Midlands Trains. The service frequency is specified by the Department for Transport, as is the stopping pattern that results in so few non-stop trains. The speed limits are imposed by Network Rail because of the characteristics of the infrastructure, and East Midlands Trains is obliged to obey those speed limits. In fact, it is consistently one of the most punctual train operators in England, with around 94% of trains complying with required standards, but even an excellent operator such as EMT cannot run a fast service on a line with very low speed limits, especially if it is instructed by DFT that most trains must stop at stations every few miles.
	There are issues such as the at-grade crossing at Newark between the east coast line and the cross-country line, and railway electrification, which Lincoln, Newark and Nottingham would benefit from, if that was forthcoming in future years. Lincoln and Nottingham are designated housing growth points––an additional 60,000 houses are planned over the next 20 years, 18,800 of them in Lincoln. Lincoln university is one of the UK’s fastest-growing universities, with a 40% increase in students planned for the next 10 years. A science park of around 1 million square feet is being developed for spin-off and related industries. Those are all reasons why we would like an increased, better train service from Lincoln, Newark and Nottingham.

Stephen Hammond: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on securing this debate, which provides a further chance for him and other hon. Members to put the case on their constituents’ behalf, as they did in a long meeting with me last week.
	The issues that my hon. Friend raised have to be seen in the context of the wider challenges for British railways and the way in which the Government are tackling them. It is undoubtedly true that we face the challenges of success. To support a growing economy and more jobs, we need to meet increasing demand. Since privatisation, passenger numbers have doubled and freight traffic has risen by 60%. In the next five years alone, we expect a further 14% rise in passenger numbers and at least 4%, possibly more, in freight. There is understandable frustration among rail travellers, and we need to tackle the issues of congestion and crowding.
	At the same time, we need to tackle the wider challenge of deficit reduction, and the rail industry, along with everyone else, has to play its part. We need to deliver better value for money for the taxpayer and the fare payer, and underlying costs must fall across the industry. To address these and other challenges we are seeing the most significant rail modernisation package for generations. Between 2014 and 2019, Network Rail will invest over £16 billion in improving our railways, having spent over £8 billion in the previous control period.
	That includes a number of projects that will directly benefit Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. The £150 million Nottingham hub resignalling and station redevelopment programme, which is nearing completion, will improve reliability, reduce delays and create the capacity to cope with increasing numbers of passengers. Electrification of the midland main line, only guaranteed and delivered by this Government, is currently limited to the route between London St Pancras and Bedford, through to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield, but it will transform the rail route between London, the east midlands and Yorkshire, offering reduced journey times, improved reliability and new trains.
	The region will also benefit from the new “electric spine”—a high-capacity electric rail freight route connecting the east midlands with Southampton, making it much more attractive for firms to locate in the east midlands and getting more freight off the road. There have been renewals on the Doncaster-Lincoln-Peterborough line to improve safety, capacity, journey times and performance, and there is a £240 million fund for increases in capacity on the east coast main line, which will bring benefits. That is all before the introduction of new intercity express programme trains on that line, which will transform the journey experience. In addition, from 2018, completion of the Thameslink and Crossrail projects will significantly improve connections from this region to Heathrow. The Government’s rail investment strategy from 2014 to 2019 rightly focuses on strategic priorities for the network, but it will benefit the east midlands as well.

Mark Spencer: The Minister is making a powerful case for the amount of money that the Government are spending in the east midlands, but I hope he accepts that most of the projects that he mentioned are on north-south routes—it is on east-west routes that we face the challenge.

Stephen Hammond: East-west is often a challenge across the country, and I am about to address that point.
	I said that the Government’s rail investment strategy rightly focuses on the strategic priorities for the network but, in line with our localism agenda, it is right that local and sub-regional bodies, which are best placed to prioritise and fund investment for the needs of their areas and to support local economies, should come forward with their priorities. The rail industry did not identify the Lincoln-Nottingham route as one on which investment is a strategic priority for 2014 to 2019, so it was not included as requiring enhancements in the strategy. The strategy does however include funding for line speed improvements across the network and for improvements to level crossings. There is £300 million for journey time and performance improvements and £65 million to reduce the risk of accidents at level
	crossings. Network Rail will spend that in locations where best value for money can be attained. Decisions on the allocation of those funds could be influenced by a local capital contribution and a local assessment of need, which is usually headed up by local authorities and local enterprise partnerships. That is my point: localism and local authorities being able to influence and enhance the value of Network Rail’s investment programme.
	Therefore, it is for Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire county councils and the LEPs—D2N2 and Greater Lincolnshire—to determine whether investment and enhancement to services on this route to improve connectivity and support local economies is a priority for their strategic economic plans and should be included in a bid for funding to the local growth fund. The Government have committed to putting £2 billion per annum into the local growth fund from 2015-16 to 2020. Moreover, any subsidy requirement for the proposed additional service on the line would also need to be funded by the promoter, usually the local authorities, which would have to be in place for three years, after which the Department would consider taking on funding responsibility.
	As I said last week in the meeting with my hon. Friends the Members for Lincoln (Karl McCartney) and for Newark, the Government have set out this position very clearly, both to campaigners and to the local authorities concerned on a number of occasions. I reiterate, as I did to both of them last week, that so far the Department has received no comment from either Nottinghamshire county council or Lincolnshire county council. We have not seen a business case for the proposed investments and improvements. However, we have made it clear to both Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire and the LEPs that we are willing to provide guidance and strategic advice. Neither of the two strategic enterprise partnerships has indicated that the scheme is a priority, and without support from those bodies, I regret to say that it is unlikely that much progress can be made in achieving the objective of improved services that Members have talked about this evening.

Stephen Phillips: It seems to follow from that that if this is merely oversight on the part of the two county councils and the relevant LEPs and that is rectified, this is a project that the DFT will treat as a priority and that this funding will be forthcoming. Is that right?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. and learned Friend, in true legal style, poses an argument that has a number of assumptions within it that we might unpick. He will obviously want to go to the very first part, which is that he has heard me say several times in my remarks that we have encouraged the county councils, the LEPs and the strategic economic partnerships on a number of occasions to make the case. The Department has offered advice and guidance on how they might formulate that case, but it has not been forthcoming. Therefore, to say that this is oversight might be quite a big presumption. However, were it to be an oversight, or even at this late stage, if those authorities chose to decide that this is now a strategic priority for them—my hon. Friend the Member for Newark nods; I made exactly this point to him last week—even at this late stage, the Department will consider their applications.

Patrick Mercer: I thank the Minister and I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for his intervention. This is clear and proper guidance. This is exactly the point of this style of debate. Not only was his meeting very helpful, but now it is on the record and all our constituents will be hearing exactly what we the elected Members have to do to try to force this through and to get a fair hearing. I am grateful.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend knows that it would have been easy for me to say some soft words. What I am saying now is probably not terribly good news for him. But he and all the elected Members here have often made the case, and I urge them all again to go to their local bodies, as I have previously tried to indicate. It is incredibly important that the county councils and the economic bodies in the region declare this a strategic priority. That will underline the importance of reconsidering whether the improvements to the line are a high priority for those bodies and, therefore, for the allocation of local funding, which is available. That could then be reflected in the local growth fund.
	I say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) that there is still a chance for that to happen, because the bids for the local growth fund are due by 31 March this year. It is still perfectly possible for local bodies to engage with Network Rail and its partners in developing a business case for the proposed enhancements and to put it forward for the local growth fund. Equally, it is still possible for those local bodies to develop a business case and put it forward as a priority for investment for the 2019 to 2024 control period. I recognise my hon. Friend’s ambition to have it earlier, but none the less that would still be possible.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln reviewed his hopes, and I suspect those of Lincoln, for an increased through service between London and Lincoln. I certainly recognise the appetite for more frequent direct services between that city and London. I welcome the work on a business case undertaken by Lincolnshire county council in 2012. As he will know, I cannot commit at this stage to any additional services, mainly because the Department is currently evaluating the business case and the network impacts of running services to the locations not currently served by the east coast main line. However, I can confirm that a number of regions—Yorkshire, the north-east, the midlands and the east of England, including Lincolnshire—are in that evaluation and assessment process. Depending on the outcome of the work, the invitation to tender for the east coast main line franchise might include a requirement or an option for bidders to run services to a specific number of locations.

Karl McCartney: It is obviously of the utmost importance that any invitation to tender includes a specification for the eventual winner of the franchise, which is what we in Lincoln want to see. On that point, with regard to cross-country services, might not a franchise extension that brings an improvement that we are seeking between the line from Lincoln and Newark to Nottingham see an improvement in the specification of services?

Stephen Hammond: I hear what my hon. Friend says about specification. The Department is keen to give options to bidders for initiative and innovation in the
	franchise. He may wish to pursue that, because he might find that it is the way to secure what he desires, rather than the Department directly specifying things.
	The train service requirement will be set out in the invitation to tender, which will be published by the end of February, so it would be imprudent of me to comment on that any further. However, as I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark and other hon. Members, I will be happy to brief any hon. Members on the proposals for the ITT at that stage.
	I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on how enhancements to that line could still be progressed, even at this late stage, were the local authorities to get themselves in line. I welcome the opportunity to
	see that the line could build on the massive programme of investment that we are already seeing across the rail network. The Government remain committed to working with local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to see improvements to the line and others, should that be a priority for them. But I say to hon. Members again—I know that they will have heard me say this—that the ball is in the court for them to hit heavily at their local authorities. I hope that the local authorities will then decide to demonstrate that commitment to the investment that they are asking me to provide this evening.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.